[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308046203.19856.9.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:10:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>,
Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 19:31 -0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> +static inline int touch_steal_time(int is_idle)
> +{
> + u64 steal, st = 0;
> +
> + if (static_branch(¶virt_steal_enabled)) {
> +
> + steal = paravirt_steal_clock(smp_processor_id());
> +
> + steal -= this_rq()->prev_steal_time;
> + this_rq()->prev_steal_time += steal;
If you move this addition below this test:
> + if (is_idle || (steal < TICK_NSEC))
> + return 0;
that is, right here, then you don't loose tiny steal deltas and
subsequent ticks accumulate their steal time until you really
have a full steal tick to account.
I guess you want something different for the idle case though.
> + while (steal > TICK_NSEC) {
/* really, if we wanted a division we'd have written one */
asm("" : "+rm" (steal));
> + steal -= TICK_NSEC;
> + st++;
> + }
> +
> + account_steal_time(st);
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
--
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