Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> Where did CONFIG_GUEST_ACCOUNTING go?
>>
>>
>
> Lost in the sea ...
>
> Actually, I thought this modification is not enough expensive (in time and
> space) to justify a CONFIG_*. But if you think so I can add this in
> init/Kconfig.
>
>
The difference between "
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> The normal user/system accounting has the same issue, no? Whereever we
>>> happen to land (kernel or user) gets the whole tick.
>>>
>>> So I think it is okay to have the same limitation for guest time.
>>>
>>>
>>
Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> So I think it is okay to have the same limitation for guest time.
>>
>
> OK, so we can go back to my first patch.
> Who can decide to introduce this into the kernel ?
>
The sched.c parts are best merged by Ingo, and I can carry the kvm
parts. Alternatively, I can
Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> [...]
>
>> The normal user/system accounting has the same issue, no? Whereever we
>> happen to land (kernel or user) gets the whole tick.
>>
>> So I think it is okay to have the same limitation for guest time.
>>
>>
>
> So this is how it looks li
Avi Kivity wrote:
[...]
>
> The normal user/system accounting has the same issue, no? Whereever we
> happen to land (kernel or user) gets the whole tick.
>
> So I think it is okay to have the same limitation for guest time.
>
So this is how it looks like.
PATCH 1 and 2 are always a prerequisit
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>
- remove PATCH 3, and add in task_struct a "ktime vtime" where we
accumulate
guest time (by calling something like guest_enter() and guest_exit() from
the
virtualization engine), and when in account_system_time() we have
Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>>> - remove PATCH 3, and add in task_struct a "ktime vtime" where we accumulate
>>> guest time (by calling something like guest_enter() and guest_exit() from
>>> the
>>> virtualization engine), and when in account_system_time() we have cputime >
>>> vtime we substrat
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 09:35 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Hi Laurent,
>> Hi Rusty,
>> how are your puppies ?
>
> They're getting a little fat, actually. Too many features ...
>
>> - remove PATCH 3, and add in task_struct a "ktime vtime" where we
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 09:35 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hi Laurent,
>
> Hi Rusty,
> how are your puppies ?
They're getting a little fat, actually. Too many features ...
> - remove PATCH 3, and add in task_struct a "ktime vtime" where we accumulate
> guest time (by ca
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 17:58 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> [PATCH 3/3] introduce "account modifiers" mechanism in the kernel allowing a
>> module to modify the collected accounting for a given task. This
>> implementation
>> is based on the "preempt_notifier". "account_syst
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 17:58 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> [PATCH 3/3] introduce "account modifiers" mechanism in the kernel allowing a
> module to modify the collected accounting for a given task. This
> implementation
> is based on the "preempt_notifier". "account_system_time()" and
> "account_u
[PATCH 3/3] introduce "account modifiers" mechanism in the kernel allowing a
module to modify the collected accounting for a given task. This implementation
is based on the "preempt_notifier". "account_system_time()" and
"account_user_time()" can call functions registered by a module to modify the
12 matches
Mail list logo
