linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add guest cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:53:28 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michael Wolf <mjw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <mtosatti@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	<avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add guest cpu_entitlement reporting

On 08/24/2012 03:14 AM, Michael Wolf wrote:
> This is an RFC regarding the reporting of stealtime.  In the case of
> where you have a system that is running with partial processors such as
> KVM the user may see steal time being reported in accounting tools such
> as top or vmstat.  This can cause confusion for the end user.  To
> ease the confusion this patch set adds a sysctl interface to set the
> cpu entitlement.  This is the percentage of cpu that the guest system is
>  expected to receive.  As long as the steal time is within its expected
> range it will show up as 0 in /proc/stat.  The user will then see in the
> accounting tools that they are getting a full utilization of the cpu
> resources assigned to them.
> 

And how is such a knob not confusing?

Steal time is pretty well defined in meaning and is shown in top for
ages. I really don't see the point for this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/