From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Stolen and degraded time and schedulers Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:37:18 -0700 Message-ID: <45F824BE.1060708@goop.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1173888673.3101.12.camel@imap.mvista.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org 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 List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Daniel Walker wrote: > Then your direction is wrong, sched_clock() should be constant ideally > (1millisecond should really be 1millisecond). Rather than repeating myself, I suggest you read my original post again. But my point is that "I was runnable on a cpu for 1ms of real time" is a meaningless measurement: you want to measure "I ran for 1 cpu-ms", which is a unit which depends on how work a particular CPU does in relationship to other CPUs on the system, or even itself at some previous time. > Like I said in the last > email, change the scheduler to make it aware of the variable quantum > values. I suppose you could, but that seems more complex. I think you could encode the same information in the measurement of how much work a cpu actually got done while a process was scheduled on it. J