Dan Hecht wrote:
> On 03/14/2007 01:31 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Dan Hecht wrote:
>>> Sounds good. I don't see this in your patchset you sent yesterday
>>> though; did you add it after sending out those patches?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> if so, could you forward the new patch? does it explicitly prevent
>>> stolen time from getting accounted as user/system time or does it
>>> just rely on NO_HZ mode sort of happening to work that way (since the
>>> one shot timer is skipped ahead for missed ticks)?
>>
>> Hm, not sure. It doesn't care how often it gets called; it just
>> accumulates results up to that point, but I'm not sure if the time would
>> get double accounted. Perhaps it doesn't matter when using
>> xen_sched_clock().
>>
>
> I think you might be double counting time in some cases.
> sched_clock() isn't really relevant to stolen time accounting (i.e.
> cpustat->steal).
>
> I think what you want is to make sure that the sum of the cputime
> passed to all of:
>
> account_user_time
> account_system_time
> account_steal_time
>
> adds up to the total amount of time that has passed. I think it is
> sort of working for you (i.e. doesn't always double count stolen
> ticks) since in NO_HZ mode, update_process_time (which calls
> account_user_time & account_system_time) happens to be skipped during
> periods of stolen time due to the hrtimer_forward()'ing of the one
> shot expiry.
OK, this will need a closer look.
BTW, what are the properties of the vmi read_available_cycles()? Is
that a per-cpu timer? If its used as the timebase for sched_clock, how
does recalc_task_prio not get a -ve sleep time?
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
