[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46377E43.8000605@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:22:03 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: menage@...gle.com
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dev@...ru, xemul@...ru,
serue@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com,
pj@....com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rohitseth@...gle.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] Containers (V9): Example CPU accounting subsystem
menage@...gle.com wrote:
> +
> +/* Lazily update the load calculation if necessary. Called with ca locked */
> +static void cpuusage_update(struct cpuacct *ca)
> +{
> + u64 now = get_jiffies_64();
> + /* If we're not due for an update, return */
> + if (ca->next_interval_check > now)
> + return;
> +
> + if (ca->next_interval_check <= (now - INTERVAL)) {
These two conditions seem a little confusing.
If ca->next_interval_check > (now - INTERVAL), the else part
is executed, but if ca->next_interval_check > (now - INTERVAL)
then ca->next_interval_check > now, which implies we return
and never enter the else part. It's been quite sometime since
I looked at this code, so I might have gotten it wrong.
I see a load of 0% on my powerpc box. I think it is because
last_interval_time is always 0, I'll debug further
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
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