> My motivation comes from debugging cgroup selftests when strace is quite
> useful and your implementation adds the unnecessary fork which makes the
> strace (slightly) less readable.
This makes sense, thank you for the context. I hadn't considered debugging
considerations much, but I can imagine
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 2:10 PM Michal Koutný wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 07:20:06AM GMT, Joshua Hahn
> wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Creates a nice process that consumes CPU and checks that the elapsed
> > + * usertime in the cgroup is close to the expected time.
&
From: Joshua Hahn
Creates a cgroup with a single nice CPU hog process running.
fork() is called to generate the nice process because un-nicing is
not possible (see man nice(3)). If fork() was not used to generate
the CPU hog, we would run the rest of the cgroup selftest suite as a
nice process
From: Joshua Hahn
Cgroup-level CPU statistics currently include time spent on
user/system processes, but do not include niced CPU time (despite
already being tracked). This patch exposes niced CPU time to the
userspace, allowing users to get a better understanding of their
hardware limits and
From: Joshua Hahn
v2 -> v3: Signed-off-by & renamed subject for clarity.
v1 -> v2: Edited commit messages for clarity.
Niced CPU usage is a metric reported in host-level /prot/stat, but is
not reported in cgroup-level statistics in cpu.stat. However, when a
host contains multiple ta
5 matches
Mail list logo
