On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Glauber Costa <[email protected]> wrote: > When we're dealing with a task group, instead of a task, also record > the start of its sleep time. Since the test agains TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE > does not really make sense and lack an obvious analogous, we always > record it as sleep_start, never block_start. > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <[email protected]> > CC: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > CC: Paul Turner <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index c26fe38..d932559 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -1182,7 +1182,8 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct > sched_entity *se, int flags) > se->statistics.sleep_start = > rq_of(cfs_rq)->clock; > if (tsk->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) > se->statistics.block_start = > rq_of(cfs_rq)->clock; > - } > + } else > + se->statistics.sleep_start = rq_of(cfs_rq)->clock;
You can't sanely account sleep on a group entity. Suppose you have 2 sleepers on 1 cpu: you account 1s/s of idle Suppose you have 2 sleepers now on 2 cpus: you account 2s/s of idle Furthermore, in the latter case when one wakes up you still continue to accrue sleep time whereas in the former you don't. Just don't report/collect this. > #endif > } > > -- > 1.7.10.2 > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
