Prev: [BUG] usb-serial / pl2302 corrupted receive
Next: [PATCH 2/5] x86-32: fix atomic64_add_unless return value convention
From: Peter Zijlstra on 1 Mar 2010 13:20 On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 07:44 -0800, Divyesh Shah wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:03 -0800, Divyesh Shah wrote: > > > This can be used by applications to get finer granularity cputime usage on > > > platforms that use timestamp counters or HPET. > > > > I guess the patch looks good, I'm just not sure what HPET got to do with > > anything.. the scheduler certainly doesn't use HPET for timekeeping, its > > terribly slow to read. > > Yes you're right. Please ignore the HPET comment. > > > > > Also, it would be good to get some more justification than 'some > > applications can use this', which is basically a truism for any patch > > that adds a user interface. > > 1) This should be useful for a shared or virtualized environment where > the shared management infrastructure needs to charge each application > as accurately as possible for cpu usage. > 2) An application that services different users and does some > cpu-intensive work may want to measure cpu time spent for each user by > the serving thread. > > I think applications like web servers, remote database servers, etc. > fit into the second category. > > For units of work smaller than a jiffy, this really helps as some > threads could potentially hide from the jiffy based accounting. > > Please let me know if you want me to send the patch again with the > corrected description and added justification. Its all should and may, anything concrete? Also, doesn't muck like schedstat, task_delay_accounting, cpuacct-cgroup or some other stuff expose this number already? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |