From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932958AbcERQKa (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 12:10:30 -0400 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:52180 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753733AbcERQKZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 12:10:25 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,329,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="355078013" Message-ID: <1463587813.5851.35.camel@citrix.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: add steal_clock support on x86 From: Dario Faggioli To: Juergen Gross , Boris Ostrovsky , , CC: , , Tony S Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:10:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <573C81D1.9040309@suse.com> References: <1463573758-11441-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <573C804F.6020708@oracle.com> <573C81D1.9040309@suse.com> Organization: Citrix Inc. Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ahe6PMzrUgeUHTJxqQL5" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-ahe6PMzrUgeUHTJxqQL5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 16:53 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 18/05/16 16:46, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > >=C2=A0 > > Won't we be accounting for stolen cycles twice now --- once from > > steal_account_process_tick()->steal_clock() and second time from > > do_stolen_accounting()? > Uuh, yes. >=20 > I guess I should rip do_stolen_accounting() out, too? It is a > Xen-specific hack, so I guess nobody will cry. Maybe it would be a > good idea to select CONFIG_PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING for XEN then? >=20 So, config options aside, if I understand this correctly, it looks like we were actually already doing steal time accounting, although in a non-standard way. And yet, people seem to have issues relating to lack of (proper?) steal time accounting (Cc-ing Tony). I guess this means that, either: =C2=A0- the issue being reported is actually not caused by the lack of=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0steal time accounting, =C2=A0- our current (Xen specific) steal time accounting solution is flawed= , =C2=A0- the issue is caused by the lack of the bit of steal time accounting =C2=A0 =C2=A0that we do not support yet, =C2=A0- other ideas? Tony? Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-ahe6PMzrUgeUHTJxqQL5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJXPJPlAAoJEBZCeImluHPud40QAJ0xZjYM7fIZXyLNQJlMudn1 EGbspRcvZUPA4QxwPEXBSCDPUGULhESdBpNM0WJ++RLoKX3E8fbcLiGSXCEwbj8q I5YYxIA5CRmN3n0Xn/piVQDRC3rwTHt4YqZ5zO4FmX2sNAdzXk/ZrGyWrE0JJm7t Yi/c3i8DqmoQC9QcBWFGolbNoW9tkihEk6m3xqVCTgsaIGwxNHYqNvfK8NkVZ6ek hf6uKV3Qh/IrMISPagIC6sVXQfskB1OBO9xCEdbWL3IG24WsphQIuCDRl/j7oPOY 2wSfHP3GmtSOygY5dzLVjlQd2LcCtldjWSKn4iZojrurCvTWeATTWyMctHcRNhT2 Hromj85uKsjp6hDOQwjOiAU/S+47RY2wX8Bujqkl3dkv/cIGiqj5STxPNtPGi6E8 Y4nA0MC6lTnPO+8boGWCs+c19x/vMcxenrvooXIkLwZbFhg8GSoQ7iMd95JvguW9 r6D8mAXeL5XrR/oCpTQ98wq1n3A5iqapTVfohvN9noRpbVbpWMddaMAyrMeo9vU5 35ehk/oO+1lJMmaRSow5HPx/krbSdKD4hjsEBRAuFwNnGBd0gtqadE9BJHzHf37b GZF/ZEeeZv1ofKdxEwF1bWAqzMG9GqTWTLZaPPD71PDI7fNfvJOXckqHLHKqQKXp S3BRXBzV2wO2psX6FEGg =um79 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ahe6PMzrUgeUHTJxqQL5--