[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130819105817.GD24092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:58:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 07:12:09PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Or may be Peter could tell us as well. Peter, do you have a preference?
Still trying to wrap my head around it, but conceptually
get_cpu_iowait_time_us() doesn't make any kind of sense. iowait isn't
per cpu since effectively tasks that aren't running aren't assigned a
cpu (as Oleg already pointed out).
The fact that cpufreq 'needs' this just means that cpufreq is broken --
but I think I've said as much previously; cpufreq needs to stop living
in the partitioned-mp era and get dragged (kicking and screaming) into
the smp era.
I'm also not entirely clear on the 'desired' semantics here. Do we count
iowait time as idle or not?
--
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