From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 25 21:20:42 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9F916A45C;
	Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:20:40 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1310A4487A;
	Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:28:17 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE1DBC74;
	Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:28:16 +0000 (UTC)
To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:14:50 +1100."
	<20060125201450.GE25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> 
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:16 +0100
Message-ID: <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:20:42 -0000

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.