[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44EECCF9.7080902@aitel.hist.no>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:12:09 +0200
From: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
To: schwidefsky@...ibm.com
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 17:18 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>>> At the moment hardirq+softirq is just added to a random process, in
>>> general this is completely wrong.
>>>
>> It's better than not accounting it at all.
>>
>
> I think it is worse than not accounting it. You are "charging" a process
> of some user for something that the user has nothing to do with.
>
>
>>> You just need a system with a cpu hog
>>> and an i/o bound process and you get queer results.
>>>
>> Yes, but system load that is invisible to standard monitoring
>> tools is even worse.
>>
>
> But it isn't invisible. cpustat->hardirq and cpustate->softirq will be
> increased. /proc/stat will show the system time spent in these two
> contexts.
>
>
>> If you stop accounting it to random processes you have to
>> account it somewhere else. Preferably somewhere that standard tools
>> automatically pick up.
>>
>
> Again, why do I have to account non-process related time to a process?
> Ihmo that is completly wrong.
>
If softirq time have to be accounted to a process (so as to not
get lost), how about accounting it to the softirqd process? Much
more reasonable than random processes.
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists