Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Martin Schwidefsky:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 20:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 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.
>
> > If a virtual CPU is idle then i think the "real = steal, virtual = 0"
> > way of thinking about idle looks a bit unnatural to me - wouldnt it be
> > better to think in terms of "steal = 0, virtual = real" ? Basically a
> > virtual CPU can idle at "perfect speed", without the host "stealing" any
> > cycles from it. And with that way of thinking, if s390 passed in the
> > real-idle-time value to the new callbacks below it would all fall into
> > place. Hm?
Martin,
I think we already do something like this. If you look at cpustat in 2.6.22
and earlier we already have steal increase = 0, idle increase = 100 % on an
idle cpu, even on s390. So while from the hardware perspective steal is
growing, we do the right thing in Linux, no?
Chrisian
-
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]
