[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289844606.2109.526.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:10:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, John stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 5/7] taskstats: Improve cumulative CPU time
accounting
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:00 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:51:57 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 18:49 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > > To what purpose?
> > >
> > > Is that a trick question? Why do we have tools like "top"? Or process
> > > accounting? The point is that the quality of the numbers we get right
> > > now is rather bad, the overhead of scanning /proc is horrendous and
> > > the 10ms granularity is rather coarse.
> >
> > But you're not just replacing top, you're adding all kinds of new
> > accounting crap all over the place.
>
> We DO replace top. Patch #7 of 7.
You _also_ replace top, but its not by far the only thing you do. If you
simply replaced top you wouldn't need to add tons of extra accounting,
would you?
--
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