On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Unless I missread this patch, this is still racy a bit.
> >
> > Suppose it is called on CPU_0 and cpu == 1. Suppose that
> > ts->idle_active == T and nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) == 1.
> >
> > So
2013/8/16 Frederic Weisbecker :
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Thanks Frederic!
>>
>> I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
>> I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
>>
>> Just one question below,
>>
>> On 08/16,
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > + do {
> > > + seq = read_seqcount_begin(>sleeptime_seq);
> > > + if (ts->idle_active && nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) > 0) {
> > > + ktime_t delta = ktime_sub(now,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Thanks Frederic!
>
> I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
> I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
>
> Just one question below,
>
> On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > @@ -499,12
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Thanks Frederic!
>
> I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
> I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
>
> Just one question below,
>
> On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > @@ -499,12
Thanks Frederic!
I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
Just one question below,
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> @@ -499,12 +509,15 @@ u64 get_cpu_iowait_time_us(int cpu, u64
> *last_update_time)
> if
When some call site uses get_cpu_*_time_us() to read a sleeptime
stat, it deduces the total sleeptime by adding the pending time
to the last sleeptime snapshot if the CPU target is idle.
Namely this sums up to:
sleeptime = ts($CPU)->idle_sleeptime;
if (ts($CPU)->idle_active)
When some call site uses get_cpu_*_time_us() to read a sleeptime
stat, it deduces the total sleeptime by adding the pending time
to the last sleeptime snapshot if the CPU target is idle.
Namely this sums up to:
sleeptime = ts($CPU)-idle_sleeptime;
if (ts($CPU)-idle_active)
Thanks Frederic!
I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
Just one question below,
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
@@ -499,12 +509,15 @@ u64 get_cpu_iowait_time_us(int cpu, u64
*last_update_time)
if
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Thanks Frederic!
I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
Just one question below,
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
@@ -499,12 +509,15 @@
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Thanks Frederic!
I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
Just one question below,
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
@@ -499,12 +509,15 @@
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
+ do {
+ seq = read_seqcount_begin(ts-sleeptime_seq);
+ if (ts-idle_active nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) 0) {
+ ktime_t delta = ktime_sub(now,
2013/8/16 Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Thanks Frederic!
I'll try to read this series carefully later. Not that I think
I can help, you certainly understand this much better.
Just one question below,
On 08/16,
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Unless I missread this patch, this is still racy a bit.
Suppose it is called on CPU_0 and cpu == 1. Suppose that
ts-idle_active == T and nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) == 1.
So we return
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:26:54PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
+ do {
+ seq = read_seqcount_begin(ts-sleeptime_seq);
+ if (ts-idle_active
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:33:55PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Unless I missread this patch, this is still racy a bit.
Suppose it is called on CPU_0 and cpu == 1. Suppose that
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
tick_nohz_stop_idle() to iowait if we called tick_nohz_start_idle() with
nr_iowait 0.
All we need is just a new field in ts- that records on which state we entered
idle.
Or we can turn -idle_active into enum. And all other nr_iowait_cpu's
in this code
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:49:22PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
tick_nohz_stop_idle() to iowait if we called tick_nohz_start_idle() with
nr_iowait 0.
All we need is just a new field in ts- that records on which state we
entered
idle.
Or we can
When some call site uses get_cpu_*_time_us() to read a sleeptime
stat, it deduces the total sleeptime by adding the pending time
to the last sleeptime snapshot if the CPU target is idle.
Namely this sums up to:
sleeptime = ts($CPU)->idle_sleeptime;
if (ts($CPU)->idle_active)
When some call site uses get_cpu_*_time_us() to read a sleeptime
stat, it deduces the total sleeptime by adding the pending time
to the last sleeptime snapshot if the CPU target is idle.
Namely this sums up to:
sleeptime = ts($CPU)-idle_sleeptime;
if (ts($CPU)-idle_active)
101 - 120 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
