On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:42 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> > > could you send that precise sched_clock() patch? It should be an order
> > > of magnitude simpler than the high-precision stime/utime tracking you
> > > already do, and it's needed for quality scheduling anyway.
> >
> > I have a question about that. I just played with sched_clock, and even
> > when I intentionally slow down sched_clock by a factor of 2, my cpu
> > bound process gets 100 % in top. If this is intentional, I dont
> > understand how a virtualized sched_clock would fix the accounting
> > change?
>
> hm, does on s390 scheduler_tick() get driven in virtual time or in real
> time? The very latest scheduler code will enforce a minimum rate of
> sched_clock() across two scheduler_tick() calls (in rc3 and later
> kernels). If sched_clock() "slows down" but scheduler_tick() still has a
> real-time frequency then that impacts the quality of scheduling. So
> scheduler_tick() and sched_clock() must really have the same behavior
> (either both are virtual or both are real), so that scheduling becomes
> invariant to steal-time.
scheduler_tick() is based on the HZ timer which uses the TOD clock =
real time. sched_clock() currently uses the TOD clock as well so in
regard to the new scheduler we currently do not have a problem. We have
a problem with cpu time accounting, the change to the /proc code breaks
the precise accounting on s390. To solve the cpu time accounting we need
to change sched_clock() to the cpu timer = virtual time. To change the
scheduler_tick() as well requires another patch and I fear it would
complicate things in the s390 backend.
And if you say that the scheduling becomes invariant to steal-time, how
is the cpu time accounting via sum_exec supposed to work if it does not
take steal-time into account ?
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
-
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]
