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
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
> 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
