On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 17:18 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > At the moment hardirq+softirq is just added to a random process, in
> > general this is completely wrong.
>
> It's better than not accounting it at all.
I think it is worse than not accounting it. You are "charging" a process
of some user for something that the user has nothing to do with.
> > You just need a system with a cpu hog
> > and an i/o bound process and you get queer results.
>
> Yes, but system load that is invisible to standard monitoring
> tools is even worse.
But it isn't invisible. cpustat->hardirq and cpustate->softirq will be
increased. /proc/stat will show the system time spent in these two
contexts.
> If you stop accounting it to random processes you have to
> account it somewhere else. Preferably somewhere that standard tools
> automatically pick up.
Again, why do I have to account non-process related time to a process?
Ihmo that is completly wrong.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
Martin Schwidefsky
Linux for zSeries Development & Services
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
-
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/
[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]
