[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282655294.2605.2716.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:08:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
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
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:17 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> "There are usecases where reporting this time against task
> or task groups or cgroups will be useful for user/administrator
> in terms of resource planning and utilization charging"
Or confusing, what happens if you attribute the IRQ overhead of a
ping-flood to your tasks?
By not providing these numbers per task/group people will have to
actually think about what it is that is causing these high irq loads and
have a chance of actually doing better than random attribution.
So no, providing random numbers on the slight chance that they might
possibly make sense for your workload doesn't seem like a sound reason
to provide them.
--
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