Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:25:07 -0800 | From | Zachary Amsden <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] VMI / Paravirt bugfixes for 2.6.21 |
| |
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... >>>> >>> Yes, I took a look at the lguest changes today and I think these won't >>> generate conflicts, just make stuff easier for you ;) Course you've now >>> got a couple new paravirt-ops to support, but the native ones are fine >>> for temporary use. >>> >> Implementing stolen time is something I'd like to do, since it'd be a >> nice self-contained example the expectations. >> > > > 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... >
Yes, stolen time happens in most moderns systems as a result of power management (and you can probably count SMM cycles as stolen if only there was a way to count them). It would be useful to report on a laptop, for instance, how many cycles have been stolen by running off battery or on a server because of heat issues. Having an interface for Linux to report this seems useful. It is a covert channel, however, in a virtualized environment, so there should be some provision in the hypervisor to turn it off.
Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |