public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: "Luca Tettamanti" <kronos.it@gmail.com>,
	"Frans Pop" <elendil@planet.nl>, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>,
	"Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@ums.usu.ru>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for testing] Re: Decreasing stime running confuses top
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:01:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <470562B9.6060200@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200710042310.25223.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>

On 10/04/2007 05:10 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:

> <patch reverting to 2.6.22 behavior>

Alternative patch:

procfs: Don't read runtime twice when computing task's stime

Current code reads p->se.sum_exec_runtime twice and goes through
multiple type conversions to calculate stime. Read it once and
skip some of the conversions.

Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>

--- linux-2.6.23-rc6-dell.orig/fs/proc/array.c
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc6-dell/fs/proc/array.c
@@ -334,39 +334,38 @@ static cputime_t task_stime(struct task_
 	return p->stime;
 }
 #else
-static cputime_t task_utime(struct task_struct *p)
+static clock_t __task_utime(struct task_struct *p, u64 runtime)
 {
 	clock_t utime = cputime_to_clock_t(p->utime),
 		total = utime + cputime_to_clock_t(p->stime);
-	u64 temp;
 
 	/*
 	 * Use CFS's precise accounting:
 	 */
-	temp = (u64)nsec_to_clock_t(p->se.sum_exec_runtime);
-
 	if (total) {
-		temp *= utime;
-		do_div(temp, total);
+		runtime *= utime;
+		do_div(runtime, total);
 	}
-	utime = (clock_t)temp;
+	return (clock_t)runtime;
+}
 
-	return clock_t_to_cputime(utime);
+static cputime_t task_utime(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+	u64 runtime = (u64)nsec_to_clock_t(p->se.sum_exec_runtime);
+
+	return clock_t_to_cputime(__task_utime(p, runtime));
 }
 
 static cputime_t task_stime(struct task_struct *p)
 {
-	clock_t stime;
+	u64 runtime = (u64)nsec_to_clock_t(p->se.sum_exec_runtime);
 
 	/*
 	 * Use CFS's precise accounting. (we subtract utime from
 	 * the total, to make sure the total observed by userspace
 	 * grows monotonically - apps rely on that):
 	 */
-	stime = nsec_to_clock_t(p->se.sum_exec_runtime) -
-			cputime_to_clock_t(task_utime(p));
-
-	return clock_t_to_cputime(stime);
+	return clock_t_to_cputime(runtime - __task_utime(p, runtime));
 }
 #endif
 


  reply	other threads:[~2007-10-04 22:02 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 [this message]
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

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=470562B9.6060200@redhat.com \
    --to=cebbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=elendil@planet.nl \
    --cc=ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi \
    --cc=kronos.it@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --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