Linas Vepstas writes: > My gut impression (maybe wrong?) is that the scaled time is, > in a certain sense, "more accurate" than the unscaled time.
The "unscaled" time is just time, as in "how many seconds did this task spend on the CPU". It's what all the tools (except a certain proprietary workload manager) expect. Top, ps, etc. get unhappy if the times reported (user, system, hardirq, softirq, idle, stolen) don't add up to elapsed wall-clock time. The "scaled" time is really CPU cycles divided by some arbitrary factor (the notional CPU frequency). So yes it does give some indication of how much progress the task should have made, in some sense. Both measures are useful. Because the current user API is in terms of real time rather than cycles, we have to continue reporting real time, not scaled time, which is why the existing interfaces report unscaled time, and the scaled time values are reported through a new extension to the taskstats interface. Paul. - 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/