2016-06-07 15:31 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 07/06/2016 03:24, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
a host
2016-06-07 15:31 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 07/06/2016 03:24, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
a host reboot), or live
On 07/06/2016 03:24, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>
>>> If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
>>> a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
>>> expect to get
On 07/06/2016 03:24, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>
>>> If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
>>> a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
>>> expect to get
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
> > a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
> > expect to get totally disjoint steal time statistics from
> >
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
> > a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
> > expect to get totally disjoint steal time statistics from
> >
2016-06-06 21:40 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
>> a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
>> expect to get totally disjoint steal time statistics from
>>
2016-06-06 21:40 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
>> a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
>> expect to get totally disjoint steal time statistics from
>> the "new run" of the
On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
> If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
> a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
> expect to get totally disjoint steal time statistics from
> the "new run" of the guest (which is the same run of the
> guest OS).
On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
> If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
> a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
> expect to get totally disjoint steal time statistics from
> the "new run" of the guest (which is the same run of the
> guest OS).
2016-06-02 21:59 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel :
> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:57:19PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Wanpeng Li
>> >
>> > I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous,
2016-06-02 21:59 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel :
> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:57:19PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Wanpeng Li
>> >
>> > I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous, then idle is
>> > 100%
>> > even if there is
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:57:19PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >
> > From: Wanpeng Li
> >
> > I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous, then idle is
> > 100%
> > even if there is a cpu hog on the guest
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:57:19PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >
> > From: Wanpeng Li
> >
> > I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous, then idle is
> > 100%
> > even if there is a cpu hog on the guest cpu after the cpu
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:57:19PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li
>
> I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous, then idle is 100%
> even if there is a cpu hog on the guest cpu after the cpu hotplug comes
> back(N.B. both guest and host are latest
From: Wanpeng Li
I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous, then idle is 100%
even if there is a cpu hog on the guest cpu after the cpu hotplug comes
back(N.B. both guest and host are latest 4.7-rc1, this can not always
be readily reproduced). I add trace to
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:57:19PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li
>
> I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous, then idle is 100%
> even if there is a cpu hog on the guest cpu after the cpu hotplug comes
> back(N.B. both guest and host are latest 4.7-rc1, this can not
From: Wanpeng Li
I observed that sometimes st is 100% instantaneous, then idle is 100%
even if there is a cpu hog on the guest cpu after the cpu hotplug comes
back(N.B. both guest and host are latest 4.7-rc1, this can not always
be readily reproduced). I add trace to capture it as below:
18 matches
Mail list logo