[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOJyo16O7MWKCFae0FDTB5s0d+HrodtzQiOUE2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:52 -0700
From: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] sched: Do not account irq time to current task
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:33 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
>> Yes. I like your idea of having separate rq->clock and rq->clock_task.
>> That will clean up this code a bit.
>> We will still need to keep track of "last accounted irq time" at the
>> task or rq level to account sched_rt_avg_update correctly. But, I dont
>> have to play with cfs_rq and rt_rq as in this patch though.
>
> Ah, indeed. Ok so have rq->clock, rq->clock_task and have a
> irq_time_stamp to fold stuff into sched_rt_avg_update(), then I think
> you can isolate all the clock bits to update_rq_clock() and then use
> ->clock_task in update_curr{,_rt}().
>
>
OK. Thanks for all the feedback. Will have a newer cleaner version of
this soon...
Thanks,
Venki
--
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