On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:06 -0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> This patch proposes a common steal time implementation. When no
> steal time is accounted, we just add a branch to the current
> accounting code, that shouldn't add much overhead.
But why not use alternative code and avoid that conditional
all-together?
> * Account user cpu time to a process.
> * @p: the process that the cpu time gets accounted to
> @@ -3169,6 +3179,12 @@ void account_user_time(struct task_struct *p,
> cputime_t cputime,
> struct cpu_usage_stat *cpustat = &kstat_this_cpu.cpustat;
> cputime64_t tmp;
>
> + tmp = get_steal_time_from_hypervisor();
> + if (tmp) {
> + account_steal_time(tmp);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* Add user time to process. */
> p->utime = cputime_add(p->utime, cputime);
> p->utimescaled = cputime_add(p->utimescaled, cputime_scaled);
> @@ -3234,6 +3250,12 @@ void account_system_time(struct task_struct *p, int
> hardirq_offset,
> return;
> }
>
> + tmp = get_steal_time_from_hypervisor();
> + if (tmp) {
> + account_steal_time(tmp);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* Add system time to process. */
> p->stime = cputime_add(p->stime, cputime);
> p->stimescaled = cputime_add(p->stimescaled, cputime_scaled);
Why replicate that code and not restructure account_process_tick()?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
