Heiko Carstens wrote:
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
Heiko Carstens wrote:
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
> 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
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.
>
>
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 mangling the cc list?
It's not
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
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
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
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
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 comments:
- perhaps
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
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
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
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.
It's
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
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.
There is also a
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
>>
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. Modify
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. Modify
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.
There is also a
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
the CPU to run
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.
It's
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 as well.
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
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
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_KVM)? that
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 comments:
- perhaps
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,
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
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_VM is used to know
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?
In fact, no.
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
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 you be more specific?
I
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 mangling the cc list?
It's not
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
to do
that.
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
