Re: [Patch 0/8] per-task delay accounting

[Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com>]

Peter Chubb wrote:

>>>>>>"Shailabh" == Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>Shailabh> To this list we can also add
>
>Shailabh>     Microstate accounting Peter Chubb
>Shailabh> <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> I don't know if Peter is still
>Shailabh> interested in pursuing this or it was rejected.
>
>It's still maintained in a sporadic sort of way --- I update it when
>either I need it for something, or someone's downloaded it and asks
>why it doesn't work agains kernel X.Y.Z.  I see a few downloads a
>month.
>  
>
So do you intend to pursue acceptance ? If so, do you think the 
netlink-based taskstats
interface provided by the delay accounting patches could be an 
acceptable substitute for the
interfaces you had (from  an old lkml post, they appear  to be  
/proc/tgid/msa and  a syscall
based one) ?
 

>My microstate accounting patch overlaps the delay accounting patch quite a
>lot in functionality, (but I thnk mine is cleaner except for interrupt
>time accounting... which the delay accounting patch doesn't do.  I
>wanted to know how much time a thread *really* had on the processor,
>subtracting off the time spent in interrupt handlers for some other
>process).
>  
>
Thanks. Will incorporate into a note on the mechanisms of the other 
accounting patches.

--Shailabh