On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 17:46 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 13:43 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
> > yes, but once this delta is subtracted from rq->clock_task, this value is
> > not
> > used to dictate power, unless I am mistaken.
> >
> > power is adjusted according to scale
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 17:46 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> it uses a per-cpu virt_steal_time() clock which is
> expected to return steal-time in ns.
This clock should return u64 and wrap on u64 and be provided when
CONFIG_SCHED_PARAVIRT.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 13:43 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> yes, but once this delta is subtracted from rq->clock_task, this value is not
> used to dictate power, unless I am mistaken.
>
> power is adjusted according to scale_rt_power(), which does it using the
> values of rq->rt_avg, rq->age_stamp
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 10:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 19:27 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 22:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:47 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wro
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 19:27 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 22:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:47 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:02 -0200, Glauber Costa wrot
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 22:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:47 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:02 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > >
> > > > I fail to see how does clock_task influence cp
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:47 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:02 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >
> > > I fail to see how does clock_task influence cpu power.
> > > If we also have to touch clock_task for better accou
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:02 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
> > I fail to see how does clock_task influence cpu power.
> > If we also have to touch clock_task for better accounting of other
> > stuff, it is a separate story.
> > But for cpu_
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:02 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> I fail to see how does clock_task influence cpu power.
> If we also have to touch clock_task for better accounting of other
> stuff, it is a separate story.
> But for cpu_power, I really fail. Please enlighten me.
static void update_rq_clo
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 20:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 16:51 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > I would really much rather see you change update_rq_clock_task() and
> > > subtract your ns resolution steal time from our wall-time,
> > > update_rq_clock_task() already updates
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 20:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 16:51 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > I would really much rather see you change update_rq_clock_task() and
> > > subtract your ns resolution steal time from our wall-time,
> > > update_rq_clock_task() already updates
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 16:51 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
> > I thought kvm had a ns resolution steal-time clock?
> Yes, the one I introduced earlier in this series is nsec. However, user
> and system will be accounted in usec at most, so there is no point in
> using nsec here.
Well, the schedule
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 16:51 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > I would really much rather see you change update_rq_clock_task() and
> > subtract your ns resolution steal time from our wall-time,
> > update_rq_clock_task() already updates the cpu_power relative to the
> > remaining time available.
>
>
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 19:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 13:06 -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > This is a first proposal for using steal time information
> > to influence the scheduler. There are a lot of optimizations
> > and fine grained adjustments to be done, but it is wo
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 13:06 -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> This is a first proposal for using steal time information
> to influence the scheduler. There are a lot of optimizations
> and fine grained adjustments to be done, but it is working reasonably
> so far for me (mostly)
>
> With this patch (a
15 matches
Mail list logo
