From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422670AbXCNVnB (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:43:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422673AbXCNVnB (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:43:01 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:56030 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422670AbXCNVnB (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:43:01 -0400 Message-ID: <45F86C60.7060903@goop.org> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:42:56 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Walker CC: john stultz , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Con Kolivas , Rusty Russell , Zachary Amsden , James Morris , Chris Wright , Linux Kernel Mailing List , cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Virtualization Mailing List , Peter Chubb Subject: Re: Stolen and degraded time and schedulers References: <45F6D1D0.6080905@goop.org> <1173816769.22180.14.camel@localhost> <45F70A71.9090205@goop.org> <1173821224.1416.24.camel@dwalker1> <45F71EA5.2090203@goop.org> <1173837606.23595.32.camel@imap.mvista.com> <45F79B9C.20609@goop.org> <1173888673.3101.12.camel@imap.mvista.com> <45F824BE.1060708@goop.org> <1173891595.3101.17.camel@imap.mvista.com> <45F82C01.3000704@goop.org> <1173895607.3101.58.camel@imap.mvista.com> <45F841EE.6060703@goop.org> <1173898800.3101.81.camel@imap.mvista.com> <45F8508F.3070109@goop.org> <1173904438.3101.92.camel@imap.mvista.com> <45F8663D.5050102@goop.org> <1173908065.3101.97.camel@imap.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <1173908065.3101.97.camel@imap.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel Walker wrote: > It's used for measuring execution time, but timers are triggered based > on that time, so it needs to be actual execution time. I don't know to > what extent this is already inaccurate on some system tho. > Well, "actual execution time" is a bit ambiguous: should that be "time actually spent executing", or "time we should have spent executing"? It looks like cpu_clock_sample() will only return accurate results on yourself; if you get the sched_ns on a thread on another cpu, it won't include the time accumulated since the start of its timeslice. J