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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox