[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51D24708.1060206@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:20:40 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>
CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Zhang Hang <bob.zhanghang@...wei.com>,
Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix cpu utilization account error
Hi, Xie
On 07/01/2013 07:26 PM, Xie XiuQi wrote:
[snip]
> Here is the kthread main logic. Although it's not a good idea, but it does
> exist:
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> /* call schedule every 1 sec */
> if (HZ <= jiffies - last) {
> last = jiffies;
> schedule();
> }
>
> /* get data and sent it */
> get_msg();
> send_msg();
What about use cond_resched() here? Isn't that more gentle?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> if (kthread_should_stop())
> break;
> }
>
>> That said, accounting funnies induced by skipped update are possible,
>> which could trump the cycle savings I suppose, so maybe savings (sniff)
>> should just go away?
>
> Indeed, removing the skip_clock_update could resolve the issue, but I found
> there is no this issue in preempt mode. However, if remove skip_clock_update
> we'll get more precise time account.
>
> So, what's your opinion, Mike.
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
--
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