Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:21:29 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Well, my observation is that both softlockup and the scheduler really >> want to measure unstolen time, so it seemed to me that sched_clock was >> a nice common place to implement that, rather than implementing a >> whole new time interface. At the time that seemed OK, and nobody had >> any objections. >> > > yeah. But then it should not be using sched_clock() but CFS's new > rq_clock() method - which does try to construct a globally valid > timesource out of sched_clock(). [that fix is not backportable though] >
Hm, that doesn't look quite right. Doesn't rq_clock measure time spent running? Unstolen time includes idle time too (it just excludes time in which a VCPU is runnable but not actually running).
J - 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/
| |