[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C52872.9060408@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:17:46 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
CC: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add scaled time to taskstats based process accounting
Michael Neuling wrote:
>> I'd also request for you to add a cpu_scaled_run_real_total for use
>> by delay accounting. cpu_scaled_run_real_total should be similar in
>> functionality to cpu_run_real_total.
>
> Will do. Should I add cpu_scaled_run_real_total to the end of the
> struct taskstat, or next to cpu_run_real_total?
>
Please add it to the end, that helps maintain binary compatibility
across all versions of taskstats.
>>> /* Note: this timer irq context must be accounted for as well. */
>>> - if (user_tick)
>>> + if (user_tick) {
>>> account_user_time(p, jiffies_to_cputime(1));
>>> - else
>>> + account_user_time_scaled(p, jiffies_to_cputime(1));
>>> + } else {
>>> account_system_time(p, HARDIRQ_OFFSET, jiffies_to_cputime(1));
>>> + account_system_time_scaled(p, jiffies_to_cputime(1));
>>> + }
>> I am a little confused here, scaled accounting and regular accounting
>> go hand in hand?
>
> We need to account for scaled and normal time in this generic code.
> All other calls to account_(user|system)_time are in arch code.
>
So the assumption here is that we ran at full frequency during
this time, is my understanding correct?
--
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