Am Montag, 10. September 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
> The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time accounting.
I would move this line
if (p->flags & PF_VCPU) {
account_guest_time(p, cputime);
--> p->flags &= ~PF_VCPU; <-
Laurent Vivier wrote:
And as values are read with a sscanf() by procps, I think adding a field at the
end of the line is not a problem.
It's not. At the time iowait was introduced I verified this
in procps.
--
All Rights Reversed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe l
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This new version remove conditional compilation on GUEST_ACCOUNTING.
excellent! For all 4 patches:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
i'd suggest inclusion into 2.6.24.
can the /proc change break anything? Any old procp
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This new version remove conditional compilation on GUEST_ACCOUNTING.
>
> excellent! For all 4 patches:
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> i'd suggest inclusion into 2.6.24.
Thank you.
> can the /proc change
Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2007 14:08:45 Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo, please, could you have a look to these patches ?
>
> The aim of these four patches is to introd
* Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This new version remove conditional compilation on GUEST_ACCOUNTING.
excellent! For all 4 patches:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
i'd suggest inclusion into 2.6.24.
can the /proc change break anything? Any old procps version perhaps?
Laurent Vivier wrote:
The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time accounting.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world,
On Monday 10 September 2007 14:08:45 Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> * Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Ingo, please, could you have a look to these patches ?
> >>>
> >>> The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time
> >>> ac
This new version remove conditional compilation on GUEST_ACCOUNTING.
--
The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time accounting.
[PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third running state, after "user" and
"system", we need a new field, "guest", in cpustat to store
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ingo, please, could you have a look to these patches ?
>>>
>>> The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time
>>> accounting.
>>>
>>> [PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third ru
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo, please, could you have a look to these patches ?
The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time
accounting.
[PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third running state, after
"user" and "system", we
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ingo, please, could you have a look to these patches ?
>>
>> The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time
>> accounting.
>>
>> [PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third running state, after
>> "user" a
* Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo, please, could you have a look to these patches ?
>
> The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time
> accounting.
>
> [PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third running state, after
> "user" and "system", we need a new
Ingo, please, could you have a look to these patches ?
The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time accounting.
[PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third running state, after "user" and
"system", we need a new field, "guest", in cpustat to store the time used by
the CPU t
On 8/21/07, Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On 8/21/07, Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> >> by doing this at kernel level, we can:
> >> - measure exactly the guest time,
> >> - move this part of system time to user time (as you think it should be
> >> user time),
> >> - have consistency between s
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Laurent Vivier wrote:
functionnalities:
- allow to measure time spent by a CPU in a virtual CPU.
- allow to display in /proc/state this value by CPU
- allow to display in /proc//state this value by process
- allow KVM to use these 3 previous functionnalities
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 runni
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
>> by doing this at kernel level, we can:
>> - measure exactly the guest time,
>> - move this part of system time to user time (as you think it should be
>> user time),
>> - have consistency between system, user and guest time,
>> - report values in /proc/state and
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 09:13 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > functionnalities:
> >
> > - allow to measure time spent by a CPU in a virtual CPU.
> > - allow to display in /proc/state this value by CPU
> > - allow to display in /proc//state this value by process
> > - all
> by doing this at kernel level, we can:
> - measure exactly the guest time,
> - move this part of system time to user time (as you think it should be
> user time),
> - have consistency between system, user and guest time,
> - report values in /proc/state and /proc//state, at system wide level
>
>
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
> functionnalities:
>
> > - allow to measure time spent by a CPU in a virtual CPU.
> > - allow to display in /proc/state this value by CPU
> > - allow to display in /proc//state this value by process
> > - allow KVM to use these 3 previous functionnalities
> >
>
> So, curre
Laurent Vivier wrote:
> functionnalities:
>
> - allow to measure time spent by a CPU in a virtual CPU.
> - allow to display in /proc/state this value by CPU
> - allow to display in /proc//state this value by process
> - allow KVM to use these 3 previous functionnalities
>
So, currently time spe
Hi John,
John Stoffel wrote:
>
> Laurent> The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine
> Laurent> time accounting.
>
> So what does this buy us? What increased functionality?
>
functionnalities:
- allow to measure time spent by a CPU in a virtual CPU.
- allow to display in
Laurent> The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine
Laurent> time accounting.
So what does this buy us? What increased functionality?
Laurent> [PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third running state,
Laurent> after "user" and "system", we need a new field, "guest", in
L
Laurent Vivier wrote:
The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time accounting.
1-3 look good to me. 4 needs minor edits...
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
The aim of these four patches is to introduce Virtual Machine time accounting.
_Ingo_, as these patches modify files of the scheduler, could you have a look to
them, please ?
[PATCH 1/4] as recent CPUs introduce a third running state, after "user" and
"system", we need a new field, "guest", in cp
27 matches
Mail list logo
