similar to: Process accounting in interrupt diabled cases

Hi all, this patch series introduces stolen ticks accounting for Xen on ARM. Stolen ticks are clocksource ticks that have been "stolen" from the cpu, typically because Linux is running in a virtual machine and the vcpu has been descheduled. To account for these ticks we introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and pv_time_ops so that we can make use of:

The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup message would be completely spurious. Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen nanoseconds, which

The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup message would be completely spurious. Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen nanoseconds, which

I have been trying to use R to gather some information from parsed log files (as part of examining some performance issues). I parsed the log files and put the data into an SQLite database, and then used RSQLite to load the data into R. The fields of interest are controller, action and total_time: controller and action have string values; total_time has a decimal value. I first did the

I've been thinking a bit more about how useful an absolute timeout is for a oneshot timer in a virtual environment. In principle, absolute times are generally preferable. A relative timeout means "timeout in X ns from now", but the meaning of "now" is ambiguous, particularly if the vcpu can be preempted at any time, which means the determination of "now" can be

I've been thinking a bit more about how useful an absolute timeout is for a oneshot timer in a virtual environment. In principle, absolute times are generally preferable. A relative timeout means "timeout in X ns from now", but the meaning of "now" is ambiguous, particularly if the vcpu can be preempted at any time, which means the determination of "now" can be

Hi I''m not too sure how best to explain this but here goes! I am trying to write an appointment system. I have, through example, just about got the dynamics correct. Even tried to play with some table joins (and excuse me if I''ve used the incorrect terminlogy). But no matter what I try I can''t seem to get the following code to work. I have a cart filled with Treatment

Here's couple of patches to improve the softlockup watchdog. The first changes the softlockup timer from using jiffies to sched_clock() as a timebase. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as counting unstolen time, so time stolen by the hypervisor won't cause the watchdog to bite. The second adds per-cpu enable flags for the watchdog timer. This allows the timer to be disabled when the

Here's couple of patches to improve the softlockup watchdog. The first changes the softlockup timer from using jiffies to sched_clock() as a timebase. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as counting unstolen time, so time stolen by the hypervisor won't cause the watchdog to bite. The second adds per-cpu enable flags for the watchdog timer. This allows the timer to be disabled when the

>>> On 21.12.11 at 14:53, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/21/11 09:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >> I currently have no idea what the remain 1% could be attributed to, >> so thoughts from others would certainly be welcome. > > What about irqtime_account_process_tick() calling account_idle_time() > with "cputime_one_jiffy" -- it could more

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 02:17:06AM +0200, Nir Soffer wrote: > Previously we measured the total time and used it to calculate the rate > of different operations. This is incorrect and hides the real > throughput. A more useful way is to measure the time we spent in each > operation. > > Here is an example run with this change: > > $ ./nbdkit --foreground \ > --unix

Hi Ingo, This series of patches implements a number of improvements to the softlockup watchdog and its users. They are: 1. Make the watchdog ignore stolen time When running under a hypervisor, the kernel may lose an arbitrary amount of time as "stolen time". This may cause the softlockup watchdog to trigger spruiously. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as measuring unstolen time,

Hi Ingo, This series of patches implements a number of improvements to the softlockup watchdog and its users. They are: 1. Make the watchdog ignore stolen time When running under a hypervisor, the kernel may lose an arbitrary amount of time as "stolen time". This may cause the softlockup watchdog to trigger spruiously. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as measuring unstolen time,

Hi I have a set of data with both quantitative and categorical predictors. After scaling of response variable, i looked for multicollinearity (VIF values) among the predictors and removed the predictors who were hinding some of the other significant predictors. I'm curious to know whether the predictors (who are not significant) while doing simple 'lm' will be involved in

Hi I have a set of data with both quantitative and categorical predictors. After scaling of response variable, i looked for multicollinearity (VIF values) among the predictors and removed the predictors who were hinding some of the other significant predictors. I'm curious to know whether the predictors (who are not significant) while doing simple 'lm' will be involved in

Hi How do I remove a machine which is o longer connected to the domain? e.g. the has been stolen or just moved without having unjoined before. I want to be able to replace the machine with with a new box with same hostname. Thanks, Steve

Stamp softlockup thread earlier before do_timer, because the latter is the one to actually trigger lock warning for long-time offline. Or else, I obserevd softlockup warning easily at manual vcpu hot-remove/plug, or when suspend cancel into old context. One point here is to cover both stolen and blocked time to compare with offline threshold. vcpu hotplug falls into ''stolen''

Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:46:04PM CEST, mst at redhat.com wrote: >On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:13:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:43:15PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> >On 4/18/2018 2:25 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:13:52PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> >> > On 4/11/2018 8:51

Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:46:04PM CEST, mst at redhat.com wrote: >On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:13:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:43:15PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> >On 4/18/2018 2:25 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:13:52PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> >> > On 4/11/2018 8:51

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:01:37AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > If unfair lock is supported, the lock acquisition loop at the end of > the queue_spin_lock_slowpath() function may need to detect the fact > the lock can be stolen. Code are added for the stolen lock detection. > > A new qhead macro is also defined as a shorthand for mcs.locked. NAK, unfair should be a pure