|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-ia64-devel
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][3/3] Steal time accounting forPVdomain/IA64
Hi, Isaku
Thank you for commenting this.
1)about new_itm value.
"new_itm" is set from local_cpu_data->itm_next
(later I use this as itm_next)
at header part of timer_interrupt.
So it does not effect itm_next changes in
consider_steal_time().
2)The difference of following time
> > > ia64_get_itc() - (the itc of the last time
> > > the timer interrupt handler was invoked)
Every time should set next ITM like follows.
local_cpu_data->itm_next(itm_next)+local_cpu_data->itm_delta(itm_delta).
So "guessed last itc" should be itm_next - itm_delta
This itm_delta effect is already considered on stolentick++;
Thanks
Atsushi SAKAI
Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:48:24PM +0900, Atsushi SAKAI wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No. local_cpu_data->itm_next doesn't hold such value because
> the valuable is updated by consider_steal_time() so that the
> wanted value is lost.
>
> --
> yamahata
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
|
|
|
|