[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F99C10.1070500@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:18:40 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>
CC: dwalker@...sta.com, cpufreq@...ts.linux.org.uk,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, paulus@...ibm.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Subject: Re: Stolen and degraded time and schedulers
Dan Hecht wrote:
> So, yes, it is per-vcpu. But, the sched_clock() samples are rebased
> when processes are migrated between runqueues; search sched.c for
> most_recent_timestamp. It's not perfect since most_recent_timestamp
> between cpu0 and cpu1 do not correspond to the exact same instant, but
> does prevent negative sleep time and is fairly close.
Yes, I noticed that when I looked more carefully, but I wasn't sure
whether it would be sufficient to make it all work out.
J
-
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