Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:16 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches Message-ID: <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:14:50 %2B1100." <20060125201450.GE25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20060125201450.GE25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>, Peter Jeremy wri tes: >On Wed, 2006-Jan-25 20:09:54 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>We are therefore forced to try to divine the intent behind the text, >>and as somebody who were around back in the eighties I can testify >>that the intent was to be able to bill computer users for CPU >>instructions. > >This implies that RDTSC (and equivalents) would be the best source of >accounting information, with CPU usage billed in CPU cycles used. >It's just users who expect to be billed in seconds. Right, so we bill users in "full speed CPU second equvivalents" -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56988.1138220896>