Re: [patch] dubious process system time.

Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]> writes:

> From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
> 
> [patch] dubious process system time.
> 
> The system time that is accounted to a process includes the time spent
> in three different contexts: normal system time, hardirq time and
> softirq time. To account hardirq time and sortirq time to a process
> seems wrong, because the process could just happen to run when the
> interrupt arrives that was caused by an i/o for a completly different
> process. And the sum over stime and cstime of all processes won't
> match cputstat->system either. 
> The following patch changes the accounting of system time so that
> hardirq and softirq time are not accounted to a process anymore.

So where does it get accounted then? It has to be accounted somewhere.
Sounds like a quite radical change to me, might break a lot of 
existing assumptions.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] (Refcount + Waitqueue) implementation for cpu_hotplug "locking"
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
• Previous by thread: [patch] dubious process system time.
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]