Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750913AbWHYKPZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:15:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750964AbWHYKPZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:15:25 -0400 Received: from embla.aitel.hist.no ([158.38.50.22]:54475 "HELO embla.aitel.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750944AbWHYKPY (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:15:24 -0400 Message-ID: <44EECCF9.7080902@aitel.hist.no> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:12:09 +0200 From: Helge Hafting User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060713) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com CC: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] dubious process system time. References: <20060824121825.GA4425@skybase> <1156426103.28464.29.camel@localhost> <200608241718.29406.ak@suse.de> <1156435363.28464.33.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1156435363.28464.33.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1490 Lines: 43 Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 17:18 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > >>> At the moment hardirq+softirq is just added to a random process, in >>> general this is completely wrong. >>> >> It's better than not accounting it at all. >> > > I think it is worse than not accounting it. You are "charging" a process > of some user for something that the user has nothing to do with. > > >>> You just need a system with a cpu hog >>> and an i/o bound process and you get queer results. >>> >> Yes, but system load that is invisible to standard monitoring >> tools is even worse. >> > > But it isn't invisible. cpustat->hardirq and cpustate->softirq will be > increased. /proc/stat will show the system time spent in these two > contexts. > > >> If you stop accounting it to random processes you have to >> account it somewhere else. Preferably somewhere that standard tools >> automatically pick up. >> > > Again, why do I have to account non-process related time to a process? > Ihmo that is completly wrong. > If softirq time have to be accounted to a process (so as to not get lost), how about accounting it to the softirqd process? Much more reasonable than random processes. Helge Hafting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/