[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E7888B8.3080809@parallels.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:36:08 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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 6/9] Include idle and iowait fields in cpuacct
On 09/20/2011 06:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 17:04 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> These are slightly different from the others though:
>> (note to reviewers: might be better to put those in a separate
>> array?)
>>
>> Since idle/iowait are a property of the system - by definition,
>> no process from any cgroup is running when the system is idle,
>> they are system wide. So what these fields really mean, are baselines
>> for when the cgroup was created. It allows the cgroup to start
>> counting idle/iowait from 0.
>
> Alternatively you can make iowait based on nr_uninterruptible per cgroup
> and count all ticks _this_ cgroup was idle.
You think?
Humm,humm... maybe...
iowait can indeed be seen as a process group characteristic. I was
mainly concerned about overhead here, specially for the idle case:
If we are idle, there is no task context we can draw from, since the
task in the cpu is the idle task. So we end up having to touch all
cgroups... Or am I missing something?
Sounds expensive.
> Now all that would need moar accounting...
--
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