Re: [patch] dubious process system time.

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 17:18 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > At the moment hardirq+softirq is just added to a random process, in
> > general this is completely wrong. 
> 
> It's better than not accounting it at all.

I think it is worse than not accounting it. You are "charging" a process
of some user for something that the user has nothing to do with.

> > You just need a system with a cpu hog 
> > and an i/o bound process and you get queer results.
> 
> Yes, but system load that is invisible to standard monitoring
> tools is even worse.

But it isn't invisible. cpustat->hardirq and cpustate->softirq will be
increased. /proc/stat will show the system time spent in these two
contexts.

> If you stop accounting it to random processes you have to 
> account it somewhere else. Preferably somewhere that standard tools
> automatically pick up.

Again, why do I have to account non-process related time to a process?
Ihmo that is completly wrong.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

Martin Schwidefsky
Linux for zSeries Development & Services
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.


-
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/