Re: [PATCH 0/4] Finer granularity and task/cgroup irq time accounting

[Balbir Singh]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-08-24 11:09:13]:

> > 
> > cgroup level info does make sense, assuming that tasks that share the
> > costs being mentioned here belong to the same cgroup. 
> 
> I don't think that's a valid assumption.
> 
> If its not true for tasks, then its not true for groups of tasks either.
> It might be slightly less wrong due to the larger number of entities
> reducing the error bounds, but its still wrong in principle.
>

The point is for containers it is more likely to give the right answer
and so on. Yes, the results are not 100% accurate.
 
> The whole attribution mess can only be solved by actually splitting out
> the entries that do work, like per-cgroup workqueue threads and similar
> things.
> 
> System wide entities like IRQs are very hard to attribute correctly like
> Martin already argued, and I don't think its worth doing.

I see Martin's view point, is the suggestion then that we amortize
these costs across all tasks?


-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/