Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][3/3] Steal time accounting forPVdomain/IA64 TAKE2

[Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:48:24PM +0900, Atsushi SAKAI wrote:

> Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > >         do_div(stolentick, NS_PER_TICK);
> > >         stolentick++;
> > > 
> > >         do_div(stolen, NS_PER_TICK);
> > > 
> > >         if (stolen > stolentick)
> > >                 stolen = stolentick;
> > > 
> > >         stolentick -= stolen;
> > >         do_div(blocked, NS_PER_TICK);
> > > 
> > >         if (blocked > stolentick)
> > >                 blocked = stolentick;
> > 
> > Could you please explain the above logic?
> > I guess that stolentick should be
> > ia64_get_itc() - (the itc of the last time 
> >                   the timer interrupt handler was invoked)
> > or something like that.
> 
> your suggested value is new_itm.
> That variable keeps as "local_cpu_data->itm_next" in the ia64 time code.

No. local_cpu_data->itm_next doesn't hold such value because
the valuable is updated by consider_steal_time() so that the
wanted value is lost.

-- 
yamahata

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel