[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100824113801.GO4684@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:08:01 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Finer granularity and task/cgroup irq time accounting
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2010-08-24 11:09:13]:
> >
> > cgroup level info does make sense, assuming that tasks that share the
> > costs being mentioned here belong to the same cgroup.
>
> I don't think that's a valid assumption.
>
> If its not true for tasks, then its not true for groups of tasks either.
> It might be slightly less wrong due to the larger number of entities
> reducing the error bounds, but its still wrong in principle.
>
The point is for containers it is more likely to give the right answer
and so on. Yes, the results are not 100% accurate.
> The whole attribution mess can only be solved by actually splitting out
> the entries that do work, like per-cgroup workqueue threads and similar
> things.
>
> System wide entities like IRQs are very hard to attribute correctly like
> Martin already argued, and I don't think its worth doing.
I see Martin's view point, is the suggestion then that we amortize
these costs across all tasks?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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