Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- From: Ian FREISLICH <if@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:06:40 +0200
"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:
> In message <E1F1kOm-000FY2-8Z@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian FREISLICH writes:
>
> >"One second's worth of the computer's processing time, which is
> >based on actual machine cycles used, not calendar time." ?
> >
> >Is the getrusage() manual page out of date?
>
> Yes.
>
> It was written before anybody had gotten the rather weird idea to
> have a CPU change frequency. Back then it was all about running
> as fast as possible all the time.
>
> We are therefore forced to try to divine the intent behind the text,
> and as somebody who were around back in the eighties I can testify
> that the intent was to be able to bill computer users for CPU
> instructions.
I wonder how many people still bill for CPU time? I'd go for the
faster context switches.
Ian
--
Ian Freislich
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- From: Thomas Sparrevohn
- Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- References:
- Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- From: Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Prev by Date: Re: vfs_aio.c is still not safe
- Next by Date: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Previous by thread: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Next by thread: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|