[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1367931401.26321.118.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:56:41 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
CC: "xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 4/4] xen/arm: account for stolen ticks
> > > @@ -301,6 +320,10 @@ static int __init xen_init_events(void)
> > >
> > > on_each_cpu(xen_percpu_init, NULL, 0);
> > >
> > > + pv_time_ops.steal_clock = xen_stolen_accounting;
> > > + static_key_slow_inc(¶virt_steal_enabled);
> > > + static_key_slow_inc(¶virt_steal_rq_enabled);
> >
> > We don't seem to do this on x86 -- is that a bug on x86 on Xen?
>
> On x86 we do all the accounting in do_stolen_accounting, called from our
> own interrupt handler (xen_timer_interrupt).
> I don't think we would gain anything by using the common infrastructure,
> we would actually loose the idle ticks accounting we do there.
>
> Speaking of which, I don't think that pv_time_ops.steal_clock would
> properly increase CPUTIME_IDLE the way we do in do_stolen_accounting.
>
> How much of an issue is that?
Doesn't the generic account_idle_time handle this?
Ian.
--
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