[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708210920.54565.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:20:54 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates
Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> ok. Just to make it sure wrt. release-management: you said s390
> sched_clock() is currently at least as precise as stime/utime - so this
> would suggest that there is no regression over v2.6.22? Regardless of
On current git s390 has a sched_clock implementaton based on real time. That
means we have no knowledge about steal time. E.g. if you only get 50% of your
physial cpu from the hypervisor on 2.6.22 a single cpu bound process has 50%
in top while on 2.6.23-rc top shows 100%, so yes, there is a regression.
Christian
-
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