On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 22:42 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 19:25 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 20:00 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 16:38 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > Couldn't you just do some math off current->timestamp to see how long > > > > the task has been running? This per arch stuff seems a bit invasive.. > > > > > > The thing is, I'm tracking how long the task is running in the kernel > > > without doing a schedule. That's actually easy, but I don't want to > > > > Why make the distinction ? For what I was going for all I wanted to know > > was that an RT task was eating up all the CPU . Did you have something > > else in mind? > > Yeah, bugs in the kernel :-) > > I can change the patch to just see who is hogging the CPU for more than > X amount of seconds (10 by default) if that pleases everyone. If that's > what people want, then I'll send another patch tomorrow. If this is the > way to go, then I'll add back the check for RT tasks to limit the output > to just RT hogs. Or is any hog OK?
The stack trace should show where the problem is . If it's in the kernel we will see kernel functions before do_IRQ() , if it's just a whacked out task then do_IRQ() would be first in the stack trace . I can't speak for everyone else, but I would want to catch both. That way we'll know if it's just a whacked out task, or a kernel problem. Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
