Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: sched_clock() uses are broken | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Mon, 08 May 2006 06:37:43 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 06:15 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 19:32 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 22:33 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 03:07 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > > >>Other problem is that some people didn't RTFM and have started trying to > > > >>use it for precise accounting :( > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking about me perchance? I don't really care about precision > > > > _that_ much, though I certainly do want to tighten timeslice accounting. > > > > > > No, sched_clock is fine to be used in CPU scheduling choices, which are > > > heuristic anyway (although strictly speaking, even using it for timeslicing > > > within a single CPU could cause slight unfairness). > > > > > > I'm talking about the update_cpu_clock() / task_struct->sched_time stuff. > > > > Oh. I kinda sorta agree. >
Sorry for yet another reply, but running the old starvation testcase that caused sched_clock() to be born in the first place tickled my funny-bone. With that running and hitting 300k context switches...
now: 2100508962835 tick: 2100508972067 stamp: 2100508961220 total: 2906 now: 2101531243883 tick: 2101531251877 stamp: 2101531238543 total: 2924 now: 2102695422392 tick: 2102695431699 stamp: 2102695418265 total: 2940
Accounting? Not :)
-Mike
- 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/
| |