Re: [patch] dubious process system time.

Martin Schwidefsky writes:

> The main question still is if it is correct to add softirq/hardirq time
> to the system time of a process. If the answer turns out to be yes, then
> it might be a clever idea to account softirq time to the softirqd. That
> still leaves the question what to do with hardirq time ..
> My take still is that softirq/hardirq time does not belong to the system
> time of any process.

I agree.

Paul.
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Helge Hafting <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] dubious process system time.
    • From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: FYI: 2.6.16-smp: DMA memory inbalance for NUMA?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 14/18] 2.6.17.9 perfmon2 patch for review: new i386 files
• Previous by thread: Re: [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]