[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B5871F3.5020800@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:55:39 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
CC: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
balajirrao@...il.com, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, linux390@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: cpuacct: Use bigger percpu counter batch values
for stats counters
On Monday 18 January 2010 03:25 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>> For s390 the jiffies_to_cputime is a compile time constant. No need to
>> initialize it at runtime, no?
>
> Indeed it is, I didn't look closely enough. Same with ia64 so no work to
> do on either arch :)
>
>> The patch itself trades some accuracy (larger cpu accounting value that
>> are stored per-cpu) against runtime overhead (spinlock to transfer the
>> value to the global variable in __percpu_counter_add). Did you
>> calculate how big the loss in accuracy is?
>
> The idea is we are already batching percpu_counter_batch jiffies, so
> with CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING we batch the equivalent amount in
> cputime.
>
Hi, Peter, Ingo
Could we please pick up the patch for -tip?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir Singh
--
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