Re: Bug: 2.6.15 Process accounting fails to account for small timeslice loads (still)

[Tim Schmielau]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Tom Burns wrote:

> The bug described back in 2004 in the following message still seems to exist:
> 
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-05/4313.html
> 
> Essentially, it appears that if a process sleeps before it uses up a
> complete jiffy then no charge is made to its process accounting table.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. ;-)

More seriously, it's a design decision. The benefit of exactly correct 
micro bookkeeping does not seem to warrant the extra cost in terms of cpu 
cycles spent in the accounting code.

IIRC there was a patch for that some years ago, if you are interested I 
will try to find it. No idea how much work it would be to port it to 
current kernels, though.

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