Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:37:43 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>, current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches Message-ID: <43D7EFA7.2060309@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43D7EFA7.2060309>