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. >>> >>> I did something similar for or s390guest prototype, that Carsten >>> posted in May. I decided to account guest time to the user process >>> instead of adding a new field to avoid hazzle with old top. As you >>> can read in the patch comment, I personally prefer a new field if we >>> can get one. >>> >>> My implementation uses a similar mechanism like hard and softirq. So >>> I have an sie_enter an sie_exit and a task_is_in_sie function - like >>> irq_enter and irq_exit. The main difference is based on the fact, >>> that s390 has precise accouting for irq, steal, user and system time, >>> and therefore my patch is based on architecture specifc code using >>> CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNT. >>> In general my patch has the same idea as your patch, so I am going to >>> review your patch and see if it would fit for s390. >>> >>> For reference this is the (never posted) old patch for our >>> virtualisation prototype. It wont work with kvm but it gives you the >>> idea what we had in mind on s390. >>> >>> >> >> thank you for your comment. >> >> As virtualization becomes very popular, perhaps we should implement >> something >> which could be used by all linux supported architectures ? >> (yes, I know it's non-sense for archs like m68k...) >> But my [PATCH 1/2] can be a good start (adding "guest" in cpustat) >> 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 we have entered a virtual CPU (the hypervisor set it, the scheduler unset it on accounting) I mean a hook in account_system_time() to call a function arch-dependent to compute the guest time (and modify the system/user time accordingly) if needed. If fact what I find annoying in my patch is it adds to guest time and user time some system time. Perhaps you could have a look to the second patch I sent. Regards, Laurent -- ------------- [email protected] -------------- "Software is hard" - Donald Knuth
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- From: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- References:
- [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- From: Laurent Vivier <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- From: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- From: Laurent Vivier <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- From: Avi Kivity <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- Prev by Date: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] [154/2many] MAINTAINERS - DIGI INTL. EPCA DRIVER
- Previous by thread: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- Next by thread: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- Index(es):