Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates

Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> 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 

On current git s390 has a sched_clock implementaton based on real time. That 
means we have no knowledge about steal time. E.g. if you only get 50% of your 
physial cpu from the hypervisor on 2.6.22 a single cpu bound process has 50% 
in top while on 2.6.23-rc top shows 100%, so yes, there is a regression.

Christian



-
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:
  • [git pull request] scheduler updates
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates
    • From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
  • Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] ver_linux is [censored]
• Next by Date: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [4/4] 2.6.23-rc3: known regressions
• Previous by thread: Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates
• Next by thread: Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates
• 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]