> The only thing remotely relevant in the list config is that 'Filter out
> duplicate messages to list members (if possible)' is set as a default for
> new members. Maybe this means that if a cc is also part of the list, that
> cc is stripped (which seems a wierd implementation; I'd have ex
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
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?
>
Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
> >> 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?
>
> In fact, no.
>
> PF_V
Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Avi Kivity:
>
>> Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
>>>
>>>
> [copying Ingo and Rusty]
>
>
>>> @Avi, seems that sourceforge is mangli
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.
>
Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Avi Kivity:
> Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
> >
> >>> [copying Ingo and Rusty]
> >>>
> >
> > @Avi, seems that sourceforge is mangling the cc list?
> >
> >
>
> It's not configured to do so. Can yo
Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Avi Kivity:
> Laurent's patch gives the best of both worlds: on old 'top', you get
> guest time accounted as user time, while on new 'top' it is accounted
> separately. This is done by reporting user time as the sum of the real
> user time and guest time. A
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 prototy
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
>
>>> [copying Ingo and Rusty]
>>>
>
> @Avi, seems that sourceforge is mangling the cc list?
>
>
It's not configured to do so. Can you be more specific?
>>> The patches look good. A couple of comment
Am Montag, 13. August 2007 schrieb Laurent Vivier:
> > [copying Ingo and Rusty]
@Avi, seems that sourceforge is mangling the cc list?
> >
> > The patches look good. A couple of comments:
> >
> > - perhaps the new fields should be guarded by a #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERVISOR
> > (selected by CONFIG_KV
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 s390g
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 dec
Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> Are these options for using the kernel as a guest or host? I'd guess
>> the former.
>>
>
> I didn't find CONFIG_HYPERVISOR.
>
I meant, add a new option CONFIG_HYPERVISOR.
> The good one seems to be CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION that is used to activate
> CONFIG_KVM
Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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
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.
>>
>
> Th
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> [PATCH 1/2] introduce a new field, "guest", in cpustat to store the
>> time used by
>> t
Laurent Vivier wrote:
> 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.
>
> [PATCH 1/2] introduce a new field, "guest", in cpustat to store the time used
> by
> the CPU to run virtual CPU
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.
[PATCH 1/2] introduce a new field, "guest", in cpustat to store the time used by
the CPU to run virtual CPU. Modify /proc/stat to display this n
19 matches
Mail list logo
