WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

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

To: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][3/3] Steal time accounting forPVdomain/IA64 TAKE2
From: Atsushi SAKAI <sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 16:31:06 +0900
Cc: Aron Griffis <aron@xxxxxx>, xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 09 May 2008 00:32:01 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080509070310.GN23162%yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20080509070310.GN23162%yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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