On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 02:49:55PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > I doubt that users are interested in such random accounting. They want
> > to know either:
> >
> > 1) how much time was spent waiting on IO by the whole system
>
> Hmm, I think I just said the same thing :)
>
> > 2) how much time
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The following example displays all the nonsense of that stat:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
>
> task A block on IO...
> task B runs for 1 min ...
> task A completes IO
>
> So in the above we've been wait
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 04:56:54PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
> >> > Iowait makes sense but not per cpu. Eventually it's a global
> >> > stat. Or per task.
> >>
> >> There a lot of situations where admins want to know
> >> how much
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> > Iowait makes sense but not per cpu. Eventually it's a global
>> > stat. Or per task.
>>
>> There a lot of situations where admins want to know
>> how much, on average, their CPUs are idle because
>> they wait for IO.
>>
>> If you are
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
> >> However, if we would put ourselves into admin's seat, iowait
> >> immediately starts to make sense: for admin, the system state
> >> where a lot of CPU time is genui
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> However, if we would put ourselves into admin's seat, iowait
>> immediately starts to make sense: for admin, the system state
>> where a lot of CPU time is genuinely idle is qualitatively different
>> form the state where a lot of CPU t
Hi Guys,
You and Hidetoshi have sent a few patches with very detailed changelogs
and it's going to be hard to synthesize. So my reviews are going to be a
bit chaotic, sorry for that in advance.
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:35:47PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Hide
(2014/04/03 18:51), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Hidetoshi Seto
> wrote:
[PROBLEM 2]: broken iowait accounting.
As historical nature, cpu's idle time was accounted as either
idle or iowait depending on the presence of tasks blocked by
I/O. No one
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Hidetoshi Seto
wrote:
>>> [PROBLEM 2]: broken iowait accounting.
>>>
>>> As historical nature, cpu's idle time was accounted as either
>>> idle or iowait depending on the presence of tasks blocked by
>>> I/O. No one complain about it for a long time. However:
>>>
>>
(2014/04/03 4:35), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Hidetoshi Seto
> wrote:
>> There are 2 problems:
>>
>> [PROBLEM 1]: there is no exclusive control.
>>
>> It is easy to understand that there are 2 different cpu - an
>> observing cpu where running a program observing idle
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Hidetoshi Seto
wrote:
> There are 2 problems:
>
> [PROBLEM 1]: there is no exclusive control.
>
> It is easy to understand that there are 2 different cpu - an
> observing cpu where running a program observing idle cpu's stat
> and an observed cpu where performing i
11 matches
Mail list logo
