Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
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.
If softirq time have to be accounted to a process (so as to not
get lost), how about accounting it to the softirqd process? Much
more reasonable than random processes.
Helge Hafting
-
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]
