Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][3/3] Steal time accounting forPVdomain/IA64 TAKE2

[Atsushi SAKAI <sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Aron and Isaku

  Thank you for commenting the steal time code.
I reply with inline.

Aron Griffis <aron@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > +   if(!time_after(delta_itm + new_itm, ia64_get_itc()))
> > +           stolentick = ia64_get_itc() - delta_itm - new_itm;
> 
> Here delta_itm is used (twice), but I think it will always be
> zero here.  Is this a mistake?
> 

As you suggested, these two variable are redundunt code.(since 0)
Please omit two variable.
Sorry for late response for this issue.


Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> >         do_div(stolentick, NS_PER_TICK);
> >         stolentick++;
> > 
> >         do_div(stolen, NS_PER_TICK);
> > 
> >         if (stolen > stolentick)
> >                 stolen = stolentick;
> > 
> >         stolentick -= stolen;
> >         do_div(blocked, NS_PER_TICK);
> > 
> >         if (blocked > stolentick)
> >                 blocked = stolentick;
> 
> Could you please explain the above logic?
> I guess that stolentick should be
> ia64_get_itc() - (the itc of the last time 
>                   the timer interrupt handler was invoked)
> or something like that.

your suggested value is new_itm.
That variable keeps as "local_cpu_data->itm_next" in the ia64 time code.

> What is your intention with stolentick, stolen and blocked?

This stolentick means same as delta_cpu in x86 code.
other variables are same as that of x86.

Is this answering your question?

Thanks
Atsushi SAKAI




_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel