Re: [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> - 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 ?
>   

Are these options for using the kernel as a guest or host?  I'd guess 
the former.

> 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)
>   

I think that it's okay to use the same method as user/system time 
accounting.  But Ingo the the right man to ask.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/