Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Scheduler fixes | From | "Michael O'Reilly" <> | Date | 25 Jun 1998 13:50:46 +0800 |
| |
MOLNAR Ingo <mingo@valerie.inf.elte.hu> writes: > > btw, we could do _exact_ process accounting if we want to, at the price of > ~10-15 cycles per schedule(). we can just read the cycle counter (industry > standard on most leading CPUs ;), add the delta to the process and do the > math later, whenever someone (top) tries to access the values. This way we > could even differentiate between IRQ cycles, kernel cycles, kernel thread > cycles, idle cycles and user-space cycles. Is this an important and > fundamental enough feature to justify those 10-15 cycles?
IMHO, yes, definately. The people that care about the 10-15 cycles are the ones most likely to care about the inaccurate counters... :)
How often is schedule() called anyway? Even if it's 1000 times per second, you're talking much less than 0.1% of cpu time.
Michael.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |