From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:30:22 +0300 Message-ID: <46C06AFE.2050702@qumranet.com> References: <46BC8B39.6050202@bull.net> <200708131605.40479.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <46C0693A.1080900@bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, Christian Borntraeger , linux-kernel To: Laurent Vivier Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46C0693A.1080900-6ktuUTfB/bM@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Laurent Vivier wrote: > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> Am Freitag, 10. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier: >> >>> The aim of these two patches is to measure the CPU time used by a virtual >>> machine. All comments are welcome... I'm not sure it's the good way to do >>> >> that. >> >> I did something similar for or s390guest prototype, that Carsten posted in >> May. I decided to account guest time to the user process instead of adding a >> new field to avoid hazzle with old top. As you can read in the patch comment, >> I personally prefer a new field if we can get one. >> >> My implementation uses a similar mechanism like hard and softirq. So I have an >> sie_enter an sie_exit and a task_is_in_sie function - like irq_enter and >> irq_exit. The main difference is based on the fact, that s390 has precise >> accouting for irq, steal, user and system time, and therefore my patch is >> based on architecture specifc code using CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNT. >> >> In general my patch has the same idea as your patch, so I am going to review >> your patch and see if it would fit for s390. >> >> For reference this is the (never posted) old patch for our virtualisation >> prototype. It wont work with kvm but it gives you the idea what we had in >> mind on s390. >> >> > > thank you for your comment. > > As virtualization becomes very popular, perhaps we should implement something > which could be used by all linux supported architectures ? > (yes, I know it's non-sense for archs like m68k...) > But my [PATCH 1/2] can be a good start (adding "guest" in cpustat) > As guest accounting is hw dependent, I think we should add a hook in the > accounting functions. > Isn't PF_VM exactly such a hook? All the hypervisor needs to do is to set/unset it correctly? -- 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/