lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Scheduler fixes
From
Date
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:1.901 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site