[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316076789.3045.4.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:53:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...allels.com,
paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
mingo@...e.hu, jbottomley@...allels.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Per-cgroup /proc/stat
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 17:20 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Answering just a single point here, if you look closely, it does not
> duplicate anything from cpuacct. What it does, is to divide it in more
> fine grained groups than just user/system. But it is not even called
> more than it already used to be. Also, I change the counters to per-cpu
> variables instead of percpu counters (so we can access per-cpu data). If
> there is any perf. change wrt the current code, it comes from that, and
> since percpu variables are cheaper to update (and summing up is much
> less frequent), it will end up even cheaper.
I just saw the word statistics and 234 lines added to sched.c and went
mental ;-)
> The steal time feature is really trivial once it is in place.
>
> About your point of the context switch cost, how would you feel if we
> optimized it out using static_branch() like it was done for kvm steal time?
Both pjt and me tried, but its hard, part of the problem is also data
structure bloat.
--
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