[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46E56A5E.20209@bull.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:01:34 +0200
From: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND 2][PATCH 3/4] modify account_system_time() to update
guest time in cpustat and task_struct
Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:12:58 +0200 Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
>> [PATCH 3/4] modify account_system_time() to add cputime to cpustat->guest if we
>> are running a VCPU. We add this cputime to cpustat->user instead of
>> cpustat->system because this part of KVM code is in fact user code although it
>> is executed in the kernel. We duplicate VCPU time between guest and user to
>> allow an unmodified "top(1)" to display correct value. A modified "top(1)" is
>> able to display good cpu user time and cpu guest time by subtracting cpu guest
>> time from cpu user time. Update "gtime" in task_struct accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
>
>
> Hi,
> Please use kernel-doc notation here:
> (see Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt or source file examples
> or ask)
>
> easy fix:
>
> /*
> + * Account guest cpu time to a process.
>
> /**
> * account_guest_time - Account guest cpu time to a process.
>
> + * @p: the process that the cpu time gets accounted to
> + * @cputime: the cpu time spent in virtual machine since the last update
> + */
> +void account_guest_time(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t cputime)
> +{
thank you for the comment.
But I just made a cut&past of the comment of the function above.
Should I be consistent with the doc or with the source ?
Laurent
--
------------- Laurent.Vivier@...l.net --------------
"Software is hard" - Donald Knuth
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists