lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 31 Mar 2006 00:27:36 -0500
FromShailabh Nagar <>
SubjectRe: [Patch 0/8] per-task delay accounting
Peter Chubb wrote:

>>>>>>"Shailabh" == Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>Shailabh> To this list we can also add
>
>Shailabh> Microstate accounting Peter Chubb
>Shailabh> <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> I don't know if Peter is still
>Shailabh> interested in pursuing this or it was rejected.
>
>It's still maintained in a sporadic sort of way --- I update it when
>either I need it for something, or someone's downloaded it and asks
>why it doesn't work agains kernel X.Y.Z. I see a few downloads a
>month.
>
>
So do you intend to pursue acceptance ? If so, do you think the
netlink-based taskstats
interface provided by the delay accounting patches could be an
acceptable substitute for the
interfaces you had (from an old lkml post, they appear to be
/proc/tgid/msa and a syscall
based one) ?


>My microstate accounting patch overlaps the delay accounting patch quite a
>lot in functionality, (but I thnk mine is cleaner except for interrupt
>time accounting... which the delay accounting patch doesn't do. I
>wanted to know how much time a thread *really* had on the processor,
>subtracting off the time spent in interrupt handlers for some other
>process).
>
>
Thanks. Will incorporate into a note on the mechanisms of the other
accounting patches.

--Shailabh


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-31 07:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2010