On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 20:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 16:51 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote: > > > I would really much rather see you change update_rq_clock_task() and > > > subtract your ns resolution steal time from our wall-time, > > > update_rq_clock_task() already updates the cpu_power relative to the > > > remaining time available. > > > > But then we get into the problems we already discussed in previous > > submissions, which is, we don't really want to alter any notion of > > wallclock time. Could you list any more concrete advantages of the > > specific way you proposed? > > clock_task is the time spend on the task, by not taking steal time into > account all steal time is accounted as service to whatever task was > current when the vcpu wasn't running. > > It doesn't change wall-time in the sense of gtod, only the service time > to tasks. I fail to see how does clock_task influence cpu power. If we also have to touch clock_task for better accounting of other stuff, it is a separate story. But for cpu_power, I really fail. Please enlighten me. I did have slightly better results accounting the whole steal time period away from total_"ticks"(*) than just with units. * Please note again that ticks here is just a (bad, I admit) name. This is not tick accounting, is just an estimate of how much useful work your cpu did. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
