Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967374AbXHMP4h (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:56:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S945812AbXHMOQY (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:16:24 -0400 Received: from mtagate6.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.139]:44108 "EHLO mtagate6.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S946616AbXHMOQU (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:16:20 -0400 From: Christian Borntraeger To: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:15:42 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Laurent Vivier , Avi Kivity , linux-kernel , virtualization , cotte@de.ibm.com References: <46BC8B39.6050202@bull.net> <46C00FC1.1070306@qumranet.com> <46C012A8.2040908@bull.net> In-Reply-To: <46C012A8.2040908@bull.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708131615.42643.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1809 Lines: 46 Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier: > > [copying Ingo and Rusty] @Avi, seems that sourceforge is mangling the cc list? > > > > The patches look good. A couple of comments: > > > > - perhaps the new fields should be guarded by a #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERVISOR > > (selected by CONFIG_KVM)? that way the (minor) additional overhead is > > only incurred if it can possibly be used. I imagine that our canine > > cousin will want to use this as well. > > There is also a CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION and a CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING (from > s390 and powerpc) Which one to use ? CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING is used for the precise accouting of user,system, steal and irq time on these platforms and is not what you want for the on/off decision. > > I'm wondering if we can have a more accurate accounting: > > - For the moment we add all system time since the previous entering to the > VCPU to the guest time (and I guess there is some real system time in > it ???) > - Perhaps we can sum nanoseconds spent in the VCPU and add it to cpustat > when these ns are greater than 1 ms ? (I'm trying to make something in this way) If you look at the patch I have posted some minutes ago, I use a method similar to irq_enter and irq_exit to separate real system time from guest time. > > - I think that there is per-task accounting of user time and system > > time; that should be extended as well. > it should be easy to do too... We have to make sure that userspace doesnt break, but yes we should have a guest time for processes as well. Christian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/