Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 20:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > For sched_clock()'s behavior while the virtual CPU is idle: my current 
> > idea for that is the patch below (a loosely analoguous problem exists 
> > with nohz/dynticks): it makes sched_clock() valid across idle periods 
> > too and uses wall-clock time for that.
> 
> Ok, that would mean that sched_clock can just return the virtual cpu 
> time and the two hooks starts and stops the idle periods as far as the 
> scheduler is concerned. In this case we can use the patch from Jan 
> with the new implementation for sched_clock and add the two hooks to 
> the places where the cpu-idle notifiers are done (do_monitor_call and 
> default_idle). In fact this could be an idle-notifier. Hmm, I take a 
> closer look tomorrow when I'm back at the office.

ok. Just to make it sure wrt. release-management: you said s390 
sched_clock() is currently at least as precise as stime/utime - so this 
would suggest that there is no regression over v2.6.22? Regardless of 
whether it's a live regression or not, i think we want the nohz 
improvement (and the s390 patch if the callbacks are OK to you) in .23, 
and we want to migrate all users of "raw" sched_clock() [blktrace, 
softlockup-detector, print-timestamps, etc.] over to the better 
cpu_clock() interface.

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