Andi Kleen wrote:
hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have "stolen
cycles" that way... I wonder if this concept can be used for that as
well...
I don't see the point, frankly.
In a virtualized
Andi Kleen wrote:
hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have stolen
cycles that way... I wonder if this concept can be used for that as
well...
I don't see the point, frankly.
In a virtualized
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:45:52PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:25 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
> > > degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have "stolen
> > > cycles" that way... I
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:25 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
> > degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have "stolen
> > cycles" that way... I wonder if this concept can be used for that as
> > well...
>
> I don't
> hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
> degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have "stolen
> cycles" that way... I wonder if this concept can be used for that as
> well...
If you mean it for the real time clock: Doesn't make sense then
because
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 16:11 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 20:54 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Indeed, I'm expecting to push lguest this week, and this code will
effect me, so I'd like to see this in a -mm soon...
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 16:11 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 20:54 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Indeed, I'm expecting to push lguest this week, and this code will
> > > effect me, so I'd like to see this in a -mm soon...
> >
> > Yes, I took a look
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 16:11 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 20:54 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Indeed, I'm expecting to push lguest this week, and this code will
effect me, so I'd like to see this in a -mm soon...
Yes, I took a look at the
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 16:11 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 20:54 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Indeed, I'm expecting to push lguest this week, and this code will
effect me, so I'd like to see this in a -mm soon...
hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have stolen
cycles that way... I wonder if this concept can be used for that as
well...
If you mean it for the real time clock: Doesn't make sense then
because Linux
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:25 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have stolen
cycles that way... I wonder if this concept can be used for that as
well...
I don't see the
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:45:52PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:25 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large
degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have stolen
cycles that way... I wonder if
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:11:16 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Patches welcome (but note that I've started a new lguest patch repo at
> http://lguest.kernel.org/patches).
Presumably you mean lguest.ozlabs.org ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 20:54 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Indeed, I'm expecting to push lguest this week, and this code will
> > effect me, so I'd like to see this in a -mm soon...
>
> Yes, I took a look at the lguest changes today and I think these won't
> generate
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:52 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
A bunch of VMI and paravirt-ops bugfixes for upstream. Also, fix the
timer code to work for 2.6.21, which had a number of changes.
These should mostly be non-controversial and beneficial to all the
paravirt-ops
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:52 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> A bunch of VMI and paravirt-ops bugfixes for upstream. Also, fix the
> timer code to work for 2.6.21, which had a number of changes.
>
> These should mostly be non-controversial and beneficial to all the
> paravirt-ops work.
Indeed, I'm
A bunch of VMI and paravirt-ops bugfixes for upstream. Also, fix the
timer code to work for 2.6.21, which had a number of changes.
These should mostly be non-controversial and beneficial to all the
paravirt-ops work.
Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
A bunch of VMI and paravirt-ops bugfixes for upstream. Also, fix the
timer code to work for 2.6.21, which had a number of changes.
These should mostly be non-controversial and beneficial to all the
paravirt-ops work.
Zach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:52 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
A bunch of VMI and paravirt-ops bugfixes for upstream. Also, fix the
timer code to work for 2.6.21, which had a number of changes.
These should mostly be non-controversial and beneficial to all the
paravirt-ops work.
Indeed, I'm
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:52 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
A bunch of VMI and paravirt-ops bugfixes for upstream. Also, fix the
timer code to work for 2.6.21, which had a number of changes.
These should mostly be non-controversial and beneficial to all the
paravirt-ops
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 20:54 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Indeed, I'm expecting to push lguest this week, and this code will
effect me, so I'd like to see this in a -mm soon...
Yes, I took a look at the lguest changes today and I think these won't
generate conflicts,
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:11:16 +1100 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patches welcome (but note that I've started a new lguest patch repo at
http://lguest.kernel.org/patches).
Presumably you mean lguest.ozlabs.org ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
22 matches
Mail list logo