linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] sched/cputime: Add steal time support to full dynticks CPU time accounting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160608072257.GA9612@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:22:57 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] sched/cputime: Add steal time support to full
 dynticks CPU time accounting


* Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:

> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
> 
> This patch adds guest steal-time support to full dynticks CPU
> time accounting. After the following commit:
> 
> ff9a9b4c4334 ("sched, time: Switch VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN to jiffy granularity")
> 
> ... time sampling became jiffy based, even if it's still listened
> to ring boundaries, so steal_account_process_tick() is reused
> to account how many 'ticks' are stolen-time, after the last accumulation.

So the 'ring boundary' part still doesn't parse (neither grammatically nor 
logically) - please rephrase it because I have no idea what you want to say here.

Did you want to say:

> ... time sampling became jiffy based, even if it's still being context tracked, 
> so steal_account_process_tick() is reused to account how many 'ticks' are 
> stolen-time, after the last accumulation.

... which makes sense grammatically but does not make sense to me logically. :-/

Rik, Frederic, could you please help out?

Thanks,

	Ingo