[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1471398894.32433.58.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:54:54 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/cputime: Resync steal time when guest & host
lose sync
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 09:16 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
> @@ -694,6 +699,12 @@ static cputime_t get_vtime_delta(struct
> task_struct *tsk)
> unsigned long now = READ_ONCE(jiffies);
> cputime_t delta, other;
>
> + /*
> + * The interval returned by account_other_time() is NOT
> + * rounded down to the nearest jiffy, while the base
> + * interval it is subtracted from is. So the max cputime
> + * limit is required to avoid underflow.
> + */
> delta = jiffies_to_cputime(now - tsk->vtime_snap);
> other = account_other_time(delta);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk->vtime_snap_whence == VTIME_INACTIVE);
That comment makes sense in the context of the discussion
we have been having over the past few days, but could be
somewhat cryptic to someone looking at it 3 years from now.
How about something like the following?
/*
* Unlike tick based timing, vtime based timing never has lost
* ticks, and no need for steal time accounting to make up for
* lost ticks. Vtime accounts a rounded version of actual
* elapsed time. Limit account_other_time to prevent rounding
* errors from causing elapsed vtime to go negative.
*/
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists