From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e36.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A50DDE07 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2007 03:48:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA3Gm2A1015690 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 12:48:02 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id lA3Gm2mJ072318 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 10:48:02 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lA3Gm1ZX020009 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 10:48:02 -0600 Message-ID: <472CA62D.8050205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:17:41 +0530 From: Balbir Singh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore deterministic CPU accounting on powerpc References: <18218.44089.274628.680088@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <661de9470711030202x24d0186cuc96a70156ecfa23f@mail.gmail.com> <18220.24362.604297.53633@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <18220.24362.604297.53633@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger , Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Paul Mackerras wrote: > Balbir Singh writes: > >> So, scaled accounting will not be available if >> CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING is defined? Am I reading this correctly > > No, what makes you think that? If VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y it is the > responsibility of the arch's account_process_tick to update the scaled > stats. And the powerpc version does that by calling > account_user_time_scaled(). > > Paul. I looked at the diff's and could just see the reversal of scaled accounting. I looked at account_process_vtime(), now account_process_tick() and things seem fine. I was mislead by the diff. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL