On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:59:33 -0800
Alok Kataria wrote:
> Yes that's alright, all that time when vcpu was idle and scheduled out
> will anyways be accounted as idle time, as mentioned in my earlier mail
> ( and if my understanding is not wrong) this is handled by
> tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick.
>
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 17:26 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Alok Kataria wrote:
> > I don't know if their are instances when interrupts are actually
> > disabled for such a long time in the kernel , but I don't see a reason
> > why this might not be happening currently, i.e. do we have a way to
Alok Kataria wrote:
> I don't know if their are instances when interrupts are actually
> disabled for such a long time in the kernel , but I don't see a reason
> why this might not be happening currently, i.e. do we have a way to
> detect such cases.
> I noticed this problem ( with process account
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 16:37 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Alok Kataria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not sure, but I think this may be a process accounting bug.
> >
> > If interrupts are disabled for a considerable amount of time ( say
> > multiple ticks), the process accounting code will still
Alok Kataria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure, but I think this may be a process accounting bug.
>
> If interrupts are disabled for a considerable amount of time ( say
> multiple ticks), the process accounting code will still account a single
> tick for such cases, on the next interrupt tick.
> Shoul
Hi,
I am not sure, but I think this may be a process accounting bug.
If interrupts are disabled for a considerable amount of time ( say
multiple ticks), the process accounting code will still account a single
tick for such cases, on the next interrupt tick.
Shouldn't we have some way to fix that
