[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130307031124.GB2385@drongo>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:11:24 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: Michael Wolf <mjw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
anthony@...emonkey.ws
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Alter steal-time reporting in the guest
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:52:16PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:29:12AM -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
> > I looked at doing that once but was told that I was changing the
> > interface in an unacceptable way, because now I was not reporting all of
> > the elapsed time. I agree it would make things simpler.
>
> Pointer to that claim, please?
Back in about 2004 or 2005 or so I was looking at changing how user
and system times were calculated (in the context of trying to find a
better way to report resources used by a thread in an SMT processor).
I found that utilities such as top expected the deltas in the
/proc/stat numbers to add up to elapsed time, and would report strange
and inconsistent results if that wasn't the case. Unfortunately at
this distance I don't recall the exact details. I don't know whether
the expectation that the deltas in the /proc/stat numbers over a
period of time add up to the elapsed real time is documented anywhere,
but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some programs depend on it, so
it's better to maintain that property.
Paul.
--
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