|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-ia64-devel
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][3/3] Steal time accounting forPVdomain/IA64
Hi, Aron and Isaku
Thank you for commenting the steal time code.
I reply with inline.
Aron Griffis <aron@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > + if(!time_after(delta_itm + new_itm, ia64_get_itc()))
> > + stolentick = ia64_get_itc() - delta_itm - new_itm;
>
> Here delta_itm is used (twice), but I think it will always be
> zero here. Is this a mistake?
>
As you suggested, these two variable are redundunt code.(since 0)
Please omit two variable.
Sorry for late response for this issue.
Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > do_div(stolentick, NS_PER_TICK);
> > stolentick++;
> >
> > do_div(stolen, NS_PER_TICK);
> >
> > if (stolen > stolentick)
> > stolen = stolentick;
> >
> > stolentick -= stolen;
> > do_div(blocked, NS_PER_TICK);
> >
> > if (blocked > stolentick)
> > blocked = stolentick;
>
> Could you please explain the above logic?
> I guess that stolentick should be
> ia64_get_itc() - (the itc of the last time
> the timer interrupt handler was invoked)
> or something like that.
your suggested value is new_itm.
That variable keeps as "local_cpu_data->itm_next" in the ia64 time code.
> What is your intention with stolentick, stolen and blocked?
This stolentick means same as delta_cpu in x86 code.
other variables are same as that of x86.
Is this answering your question?
Thanks
Atsushi SAKAI
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
|
|
|
|