Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates

[Ingo Molnar]

* Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> > could you send that precise sched_clock() patch? It should be an order 
> > of magnitude simpler than the high-precision stime/utime tracking you 
> > already do, and it's needed for quality scheduling anyway.
> 
> I have a question about that. I just played with sched_clock, and even 
> when I intentionally slow down sched_clock by a factor of 2, my cpu 
> bound process gets 100 % in top. If this is intentional, I dont 
> understand how a virtualized sched_clock would fix the accounting 
> change?

hm, does on s390 scheduler_tick() get driven in virtual time or in real 
time? The very latest scheduler code will enforce a minimum rate of 
sched_clock() across two scheduler_tick() calls (in rc3 and later 
kernels). If sched_clock() "slows down" but scheduler_tick() still has a 
real-time frequency then that impacts the quality of scheduling. So 
scheduler_tick() and sched_clock() must really have the same behavior 
(either both are virtual or both are real), so that scheduling becomes 
invariant to steal-time.

	Ingo
-
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/