From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 25 21:38:59 2006 Return-Path: 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 D47CF16A420; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:38:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837AC43E91; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:37:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0PLbiOX029638; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:37:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <43D7EFA7.2060309@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:37:43 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp References: <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Peter Jeremy , current@freebsd.org, arch@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:39:00 -0000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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" > Regardless of the technical merits of one accounting method or another, changing the results of rusage is going to result in many years of questions to the mailing lists and grumbling from uneducated sysadmins that FreeBSD is somehow inferior because of this one detail. I know that's an emotional argument and not a technical one, but it's also important to consider. Scott