[Bug 246940] [wishlist/enhancement, patch incl.]: idle user tasks should be charged as "nice" or "idle" CPU time

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246940

t.eichstaedt at gmx.net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #215172|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |
 Attachment #215173|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #8 from t.eichstaedt at gmx.net ---
Created attachment 215241
  --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=215241&action=edit
expose add. cp_time(s) (realtime/idle) via sysctl cp_time(s)_ext

Now guess what, that was so simple that it succeeded to compile on the 3rd try
(only typos), and it runs on bare metal on the 1st -- I'm writing this with the
patch applied.  I was too lazy to beadm or set up a VM to test.

If I violated any written or unspoken guidelines/rules, please let me know
(PLMK).
The Dev Handbook is on top of my list to read, but for now I just followed what
I saw in the src code.

I took the freedom to add some comments and documentation which might write out
what is already clear to the avg audience.  If so, PLMK, and I'll fix all that.
 I want to do it the BSD way, and no quick hack.

In pcpu.h:struct pcpu{}, I added "long pc_cp_time_ext[CPUSTATES_EXT]" analogue
to "pc_cp_time[CPUSTATES]", and I'm not comfortable with that.  It will break
some base and port apps, right? top(1) runs... but others?

Strictly speaking, a new sysctl is not neccessary, as I also added
resource.h:read_cpu_time_ext() analogue to read_cpu_time().  IMHO it's kind to
have a sysctl, because curious folk who will make use out of it, will stumble
over this more likely than if it's hidden in a header file.

Now if you approve this patch, I can start patching powerd(8) to make use of
it, but I fear to start an avalanche, esp. concerning supporting freq setting
on independant cpu.  It also seems fairly simple, though.

thx again for your time.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.