On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 09:15 +, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > As with s390, 64-bit PowerPC also uses CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING.
> > > That affects how tsk->utime and tsk->stime are accumulated (we call
> > > account_user_time and account_system_time directly rather than calling
> > >
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As with s390, 64-bit PowerPC also uses CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING.
> > That affects how tsk->utime and tsk->stime are accumulated (we call
> > account_user_time and account_system_time
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As with s390, 64-bit PowerPC also uses CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING.
That affects how tsk-utime and tsk-stime are accumulated (we call
account_user_time and account_system_time directly rather
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 09:15 +, Jan Glauber wrote:
As with s390, 64-bit PowerPC also uses CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING.
That affects how tsk-utime and tsk-stime are accumulated (we call
account_user_time and account_system_time directly rather than calling
update_process_times) as
* Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PowerPC's sched_clock() currently measures real time. On POWER5 and
> POWER6 machines we could change it to use a register called the "PURR"
> (for Processor Utilization of Resources Register), which only measures
> time spent while the partition
Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Do you think this makes the PURR more useful for CFS, or less? To me
> it looks like this would mean that CFS can make a more equitable
> distribution of CPU time if, for example, you had 3 runnable tasks on
> a 2-core x dual-threaded machine (4 virtual CPUs).
>
Sounds
Paul Mackerras wrote:
Do you think this makes the PURR more useful for CFS, or less? To me
it looks like this would mean that CFS can make a more equitable
distribution of CPU time if, for example, you had 3 runnable tasks on
a 2-core x dual-threaded machine (4 virtual CPUs).
Sounds
* Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PowerPC's sched_clock() currently measures real time. On POWER5 and
POWER6 machines we could change it to use a register called the PURR
(for Processor Utilization of Resources Register), which only measures
time spent while the partition is
Ingo Molnar writes:
> CFS does measure time elapsed across task-sleep periods (and does
> something similar to what the old scheduler's 'sleep average'
> interactivity mechanism did), but that mechanism measures "time spent
> running during sleep", not "time spent idling".
PowerPC's
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 21:38 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jan Glauber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > still, CFS needs time measurement across idle periods as well, for
> > > another purpose: to be able to do precise task statistics for /proc.
> > > (for top, ps, etc.) So it's still true
* Jan Glauber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > still, CFS needs time measurement across idle periods as well, for
> > another purpose: to be able to do precise task statistics for /proc.
> > (for top, ps, etc.) So it's still true that sched_clock() should
> > include idle periods too.
>
> I'm
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 18:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > /*
> > > - * Monotonic_clock - returns # of nanoseconds passed since time_init()
> > > + * Scheduler clock - returns current time in nanosec units.
> > > + * Now based on virtual cpu
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > /*
> > - * Monotonic_clock - returns # of nanoseconds passed since time_init()
> > + * Scheduler clock - returns current time in nanosec units.
> > + * Now based on virtual cpu time to only account time the guest
> > + * was actually running.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 08:29:06AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > - * Monotonic_clock - returns # of nanoseconds passed since time_init()
> > + * Scheduler clock - returns current time in nanosec units.
> > + * Now based on virtual cpu time to only account time the guest
> > + * was
Jan Glauber wrote:
> This patch introduces a cpu time clock for s390 (only ticking
> if the virtual cpu is running) and bases the s390 implementation
> of sched_clock() on it.
>
> The times lice length on a virtual cpu can be anything
> between the calculated time slice and zero. In reality
> this
This patch introduces a cpu time clock for s390 (only ticking
if the virtual cpu is running) and bases the s390 implementation
of sched_clock() on it.
The times lice length on a virtual cpu can be anything
between the calculated time slice and zero. In reality
this doesn't seem to be problem,
This patch introduces a cpu time clock for s390 (only ticking
if the virtual cpu is running) and bases the s390 implementation
of sched_clock() on it.
The times lice length on a virtual cpu can be anything
between the calculated time slice and zero. In reality
this doesn't seem to be problem,
Jan Glauber wrote:
This patch introduces a cpu time clock for s390 (only ticking
if the virtual cpu is running) and bases the s390 implementation
of sched_clock() on it.
The times lice length on a virtual cpu can be anything
between the calculated time slice and zero. In reality
this
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 08:29:06AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
- * Monotonic_clock - returns # of nanoseconds passed since time_init()
+ * Scheduler clock - returns current time in nanosec units.
+ * Now based on virtual cpu time to only account time the guest
+ * was actually
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/*
- * Monotonic_clock - returns # of nanoseconds passed since time_init()
+ * Scheduler clock - returns current time in nanosec units.
+ * Now based on virtual cpu time to only account time the guest
+ * was actually running.
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 18:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/*
- * Monotonic_clock - returns # of nanoseconds passed since time_init()
+ * Scheduler clock - returns current time in nanosec units.
+ * Now based on virtual cpu time to only
* Jan Glauber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
still, CFS needs time measurement across idle periods as well, for
another purpose: to be able to do precise task statistics for /proc.
(for top, ps, etc.) So it's still true that sched_clock() should
include idle periods too.
I'm not sure,
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 21:38 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jan Glauber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
still, CFS needs time measurement across idle periods as well, for
another purpose: to be able to do precise task statistics for /proc.
(for top, ps, etc.) So it's still true that
Ingo Molnar writes:
CFS does measure time elapsed across task-sleep periods (and does
something similar to what the old scheduler's 'sleep average'
interactivity mechanism did), but that mechanism measures time spent
running during sleep, not time spent idling.
PowerPC's sched_clock()
24 matches
Mail list logo
