Re: Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes.

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 17:50 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: 
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:37:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the 
> > > intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize 
> > > the different weights.
> > 
> > You're suggesting adding noise to the regular kernel tick?
> 
> No, to the perf interval (which I assumed Mike was using to profile this?)

Yeah, perf top -F 250 exhibits the same inaccuracy as 250 Hz tick cpu
accounting.  (sufficient sample jitter should cure it, but I think I'd
prefer to just live with it)

-Mike

--
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/