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

[Atsushi SAKAI <sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Isaku

Thank you for your comments.

The stolentick is composed of blocked, stolen and truely running time.
The consider_steal_time() only treats above blocked and stolen value.
So it does not need to add itm_delta more.

P.S.
If you confuse the name of stolentick, please forgive me.

Thanks
Atsushi SAKAI


Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 04:31:06PM +0900, Atsushi SAKAI wrote:
> > 1)about new_itm  value.
> > "new_itm" is set from local_cpu_data->itm_next
> > (later I use this as itm_next) 
> > at header part of timer_interrupt.
> > 
> > So it does not effect itm_next changes in
> > consider_steal_time().
> > 
> > 2)The difference of following time 
> > > > > ia64_get_itc() - (the itc of the last time 
> > > > >                   the timer interrupt handler was invoked)
> > 
> > Every time should set next ITM like follows.
> > local_cpu_data->itm_next(itm_next)+local_cpu_data->itm_delta(itm_delta).
> > 
> > So "guessed last itc" should be itm_next - itm_delta
> > This itm_delta effect is already considered on stolentick++;
> 
> Really?
> consider_steal_time()
>         unsigned long delta_itm = 0, stolentick = 0;
>         delta_itm += local_cpu_data->itm_delta * (stolen + blocked);
>         local_cpu_data->itm_next = delta_itm + new_itm;
> 
> Shouldn't be delta_itm added one more local_cpu_data->itm_delta?
> If consider_steal_time() returns 0, the while loop in timer_interrupt()
> may add local_cpu_data->itm_delta more than once.
> What's your assumption here?
> 
> -- 
> yamahata



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