Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 4/4] xen/arm: account for stolen ticks

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 7 May 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > @@ -301,6 +320,10 @@ static int __init xen_init_events(void)
> > > >  
> > > >         on_each_cpu(xen_percpu_init, NULL, 0);
> > > >  
> > > > +       pv_time_ops.steal_clock = xen_stolen_accounting;
> > > > +       static_key_slow_inc(&paravirt_steal_enabled);
> > > > +       static_key_slow_inc(&paravirt_steal_rq_enabled);
> > > 
> > > We don't seem to do this on x86 -- is that a bug on x86 on Xen?
> > 
> > On x86 we do all the accounting in do_stolen_accounting, called from our
> > own interrupt handler (xen_timer_interrupt).
> > I don't think we would gain anything by using the common infrastructure,
> > we would actually loose the idle ticks accounting we do there.
> > 
> > Speaking of which, I don't think that pv_time_ops.steal_clock would
> > properly increase CPUTIME_IDLE the way we do in do_stolen_accounting.
> > 
> > How much of an issue is that?
> 
> Doesn't the generic account_idle_time handle this?

AFAICT only if the rq is idle, while do_stolen_accounting would account
for ticks in RUNSTATE_blocked

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel