From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756198AbXKBNmc (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:42:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754115AbXKBNmO (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:42:14 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:49735 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753879AbXKBNmN (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:42:13 -0400 Message-ID: <472B2908.7020507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:11:28 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , linux kernel mailing list Subject: delayacct regression in 2.6.24 git Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Ingo, I missed commit 75d4ef16a6aa84f708188bada182315f80aab6fa "sched: fix delay accounting performance regression" Without these changes, I find that delay accounting does not work as expected, I see zeros in the field for virtual,delay and count(s). CPU count real total virtual total delay total 0 535861848 0 0 This breaks existing delay accounting behaviour. Am I missing something? -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL