[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1309470872.12449.609.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:54:32 +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 v3 7/9] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:29 -0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> +static noinline bool touch_steal_time(int is_idle)
That noinline is very unlucky there,
> +{
> + u64 steal, st = 0;
> +
> + if (static_branch(¶virt_steal_enabled)) {
> +
> + steal = paravirt_steal_clock(smp_processor_id());
> +
> + steal -= this_rq()->prev_steal_time;
> +
> + st = steal_ticks(steal);
> + this_rq()->prev_steal_time += st * TICK_NSEC;
> +
> + if (is_idle || st == 0)
> + return false;
> +
> + account_steal_time(st);
> + return true;
> + }
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
> {
> s64 irq_delta;
> @@ -3716,6 +3760,9 @@ void account_user_time(struct task_struct *p,
> cputime_t cputime,
> struct cpu_usage_stat *cpustat = &kstat_this_cpu.cpustat;
> cputime64_t tmp;
>
> + if (touch_steal_time(0))
> + return;
Means we have an unconditional call here, even if the static_branch() is
patched out.
--
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