[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070719193840.GA29523@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:38:40 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
mschwid2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, efault@....de,
dmitry.adamushko@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org, anton@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtual sched_clock() for s390
* Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > still, CFS needs time measurement across idle periods as well, for
> > another purpose: to be able to do precise task statistics for /proc.
> > (for top, ps, etc.) So it's still true that sched_clock() should
> > include idle periods too.
>
> I'm not sure, s390 already has an implemetation for precise accounting
> in the architecture code, does CFS also improve accounting data?
what kind of precise accounting does s390 have in the architecture code?
CFS changes task (and load) accounting to be sched_clock() driven in
essence.
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