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 wrote:
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 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_rt_power(), which does it using the
values of rq-rt_avg, rq-age_stamp, and
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 unsubscribe
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_rt_power(),
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 the
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
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_power, I
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 accounting of
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 cpu power.
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 (and
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 working
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.
But then
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 scheduler
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 the
15 matches
Mail list logo
