[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FC60E12.4010201@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:09:54 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<devel@...nvz.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
<handai.szj@...il.com>, <Andrew.Phillips@...x.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] measure exec_clock for rt sched entities
On 05/30/2012 03:00 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
> Does this even need to be hierarchical? While it's natural for it to
> be in the CFS case, it feels forced here.
>
> You could instead make this rt_rq->local_exec_clock charging only to
> the parenting rt_rq and post-aggregate when you want to report. The
> only thing you'd need to be careful of is also accounting children
> somewhere on the parent on destruction (reaped_exec_clock?).
>
> Harking back to symmetry, local_exec_clock is also a potentially
> useful stat on the CFS side of things since it allows you to usefully
> disambiguate versus your children (common case where this is useful is
> calculating usage of threads in the root cgroup); so it wouldn't need
> to be unique to rt_rq.
I can try this approach.
--
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