From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] sched/cputime: Add steal time support to full
 dynticks CPU time accounting
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:22:57 +0200
Message-ID: <20160608072257.GA9612@gmail.com>
References: <1465355110-21714-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
 <1465355110-21714-3-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1465355110-21714-3-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org


* Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
> 
> This patch adds guest steal-time support to full dynticks CPU
> time accounting. After the following commit:
> 
> ff9a9b4c4334 ("sched, time: Switch VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN to jiffy granularity")
> 
> ... time sampling became jiffy based, even if it's still listened
> to ring boundaries, so steal_account_process_tick() is reused
> to account how many 'ticks' are stolen-time, after the last accumulation.

So the 'ring boundary' part still doesn't parse (neither grammatically nor 
logically) - please rephrase it because I have no idea what you want to say here.

Did you want to say:

> ... time sampling became jiffy based, even if it's still being context tracked, 
> so steal_account_process_tick() is reused to account how many 'ticks' are 
> stolen-time, after the last accumulation.

... which makes sense grammatically but does not make sense to me logically. :-/

Rik, Frederic, could you please help out?

Thanks,

	Ingo