Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:34:01 -0800 | From | Stephane Eranian <> | Subject | Re: [perfmon] Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2 |
| |
Thomas,
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > It looks like a solution would be to change the implementation of > > > timeout-based switching to use HR timers instead. Similar to what is > > > done for ITIMER_REAL and ITIMER_VIRTUAL. > > Using a hrtimer is perfrectly fine, I'd say it's preferred over hooks in > some code which has absoluty no guarantee of being executed periodically > or even executed at all. OTOH it seems rather stupid to measure stuff > while the system is idle and doing nothing. > I managed to switch the perfmon2 code to use hrtimer(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) for system-wide (per-cpu) measurements. The code is simple and this allowed me to do some more cleanups. I think this was a good suggestion and I made the change rapidly.
Now, I must admit I don't quite understand how to make this work for per-thread measurements where the timer would have to operate like ITIMER_VIRTUAL,i.e., only run when the thread runs. I looked at the setitimer() code and I admit it is not clear to me. What about CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID, would it do what I need from inside the kernel?
Thanks.
-- -Stephane - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |