[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1309602628.10073.24.camel@twins>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:30:28 +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 v4 7/9] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 17:22 -0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> @@ -3929,6 +3945,23 @@ void account_process_tick(struct task_struct *p, int user_tick)
> return;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> + if (static_branch(¶virt_steal_enabled)) {
> + u64 steal, st = 0;
> +
> + 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 (st) {
> + account_steal_time(st);
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> if (user_tick)
> account_user_time(p, cputime_one_jiffy, one_jiffy_scaled);
> else if ((p != rq->idle) || (irq_count() != HARDIRQ_OFFSET))
So I was about to send an Ack for this patch, when I noticed that this
will all be dead code when CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING &&
sched_clock_irqtime.
I think irqtime_account_process_tick() wants a similar hunk (which
suggests splitting it out into an inline function).
--
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