Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762737AbXHURrd (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:47:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758330AbXHURrZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:47:25 -0400 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.190]:44670 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754880AbXHURrY (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:47:24 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LtToFBbX/Xigvxt2XzkhnW97DwBQ4Bm4uMuOXKib0lqdln/69kRmNjfTT4kWvtRqkLcEw/FyAml505yby/WVgqgTj6ODNKLffY16MWWthCU3mTylpFy6zCTDShXu3tRZwjuevxtAJ7vVt4h0LJuPHW5Uzhf1Cn4zZdTLQSTVsr0= Message-ID: <5d6222a80708211047x1393524j962afc0a02af5ba3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:47:21 -0300 From: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" To: "Christian Borntraeger" Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[kvm-devel]_R=E9f._:_Re:_[PATCH_0?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?/4]_Virtual_Machine_Time_Accounting?= Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "laurent.vivier@bull.net" , "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" , "John Stoffel" , linux-kernel , virtualization In-Reply-To: <200708211006.42938.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5d6222a80708201334q27fc6cbcr7ce6a9d7147437a2@mail.gmail.com> <200708211006.42938.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1572 Lines: 35 On 8/21/07, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Glauber de Oliveira Costa: > > Although I don't know KVM to a that deep level, I think it should be > > possible to keep the virtual cpus in different process (or threads), > > and take the accounting time from there. Perfectly possible to know > > the time we spent running (user time), and the time the hypervisor > > spent doing things on our behalf (system time). > > I disagree here. First thing, you dont want to have the virtual cpu in a > different process than the hypervisor control code for that cpu. Otherwise > communication has to be made via IPC. > Secondly, Its not qemu/kvm that does the accouting. Its existing userspace > code like top/snmp agents and clients! etc. that would require additional > knowledge which thread is guest code. Yes, the second argument kills me, and I think it leaves no further room from discussion in my side. Thanks for the enlightenment. > I personally like the approach Laurent has taken. Maybe it needs some polish > and maybe we want an account_guest_time function, but in general I think he > is doing the right thing. > Now, me too. -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." - 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/