From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: "Frans Pop" <elendil@planet.nl>,
"Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@redhat.com>,
"Luca Tettamanti" <kronos.it@gmail.com>,
"Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>,
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@ums.usu.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for testing] Re: Decreasing stime running confuses top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:00:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071008170023.GA31765@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200710081849.04380.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
* Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Why does it still shows numbers going backwards? I guess the sampled
> values for stime and utime change in flight between task_utime and
> task_stime are called. Lets say utime will be increased. Given the
> same sum_exec_runtime that means that the result of task_stime() will
> get smaller at this point.
>
> So Chucks patch only deals with sum_exec_runtime changing.
basically sum_exec_runtime is split up to form a precise utime/stime,
using the stime/utime ratio as the factor.
> > It seems to me that this patch would be the best option for 2.6.23.
>
> Ingo, do you have any opinion about how to proceed?
the problem occurs when there's a different "split" dictated by
p->stime/p->utime. The sum of stime+utime as reported should be
monotonic, but the individual components may not. (the reason is that we
have a precise "sum" for free, given by the scheduler, but we do not
want the overhead of per-syscall timestamps to get a precise stime/utime
numbers. So we sample p->stime and p->utime from the scheduler tick.)
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-08 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-03 12:33 top displaying 9999% CPU usage Frans Pop
2007-10-03 12:52 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-10-03 13:03 ` Alexander E. Patrakov
2007-10-03 14:04 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-03 14:43 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2007-10-03 14:51 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2007-10-03 19:27 ` Decreasing stime running confuses top (was: top displaying 9999% CPU usage) Frans Pop
2007-10-03 20:24 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-10-03 23:32 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-04 19:19 ` Luca Tettamanti
2007-10-04 19:32 ` Decreasing stime running confuses top Chuck Ebbert
2007-10-04 20:00 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-04 20:21 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-10-04 21:10 ` [PATCH for testing] " Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-04 22:01 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-10-04 22:31 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-05 11:43 ` Luca
2007-10-05 15:07 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-05 15:49 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-08 16:49 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-08 17:00 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071008170023.GA31765@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi \
--cc=kronos.it@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patrakov@ums.usu.ru \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.