On 2018/7/23 下午5:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:27:27AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
@@ -6788,6 +6790,12 @@ static int cpu_cfs_stat_show(struct seq_file *sf, void
*v)
seq_printf(sf, "nr_throttled %d\n", cfs_b->nr_throttled);
seq_printf(sf, "throttled_time %llu\n",
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:27:27AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
> @@ -6788,6 +6790,12 @@ static int cpu_cfs_stat_show(struct seq_file *sf, void
> *v)
> seq_printf(sf, "nr_throttled %d\n", cfs_b->nr_throttled);
> seq_printf(sf, "throttled_time %llu\n", cfs_b->throttled_time);
>
> + if (scheds
Hi, folks
On 2018/7/4 上午11:27, 王贇 wrote:
Although we can rely on cpuacct to present the cpu usage of task
group, it is hard to tell how intense the competition is between
these groups on cpu resources.
Monitoring the wait time of each process or sched_debug could cost
too much, and there is no
On 2018/7/4 上午11:27, 王贇 wrote:
Although we can rely on cpuacct to present the cpu usage of task
group, it is hard to tell how intense the competition is between
these groups on cpu resources.
Monitoring the wait time of each process or sched_debug could cost
too much, and there is no good way
Although we can rely on cpuacct to present the cpu usage of task
group, it is hard to tell how intense the competition is between
these groups on cpu resources.
Monitoring the wait time of each process or sched_debug could cost
too much, and there is no good way to accurately represent the
confli
5 matches
Mail list logo
