[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070316083828.GA22168@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:38:28 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>, 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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, paulus@...ibm.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Stolen and degraded time and schedulers
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > touching the 'timer tick' is the wrong approach. 'stolen time' only
> > matters to the /scheduler tick/. So extend the hypervisor interface to
> > allow the injection of 'virtual' scheduler tick events: via the use of a
> > special clockevents device - do not change clockevents itself.
>
> I didn't. I was using sloppy terminology: I hang the stolen time
> accounting off the Xen timer interrupt routine, just so that it gets
> run every now and again.
i dont understand: how are you separating 'stolen time' drifts from
events generated for absolute timeouts?
> I suppose I could explicitly hook stolen time accounting into the
> scheduler, but its not obvious to me that it's necessary.
right now i dont see any clean way to solve this problem without having
two clockevents drivers: one for the scheduler, one for timer events.
Ingo
-
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