From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Balaji Rao <balajirrao@gmail.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuacct: VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING don't prevent percpu cputime count
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:01:51 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090428073151.GC3825@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090428153611.EBC6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:53:32PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> I'm not cpuacct expert. please give me comment.
>
> ====================
> Subject: [PATCH] cpuacct: VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING don't prevent percpu cputime caching
>
> impact: little performance improvement
>
> cpuacct_update_stats() is called at every tick updating. and it use percpu_counter
> for avoiding performance degression.
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't works on VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y environment properly.
> if VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y, every tick update much than 1000 cputime.
> Thus every percpu_counter_add() makes spinlock grabbing and update non-percpu-variable.
>
> This patch change the batch rule. now, every cpu can store "percpu_counter_bach x jiffies"
> cputime in percpu cache.
> it mean this patch don't have behavior change if VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n, but
> works well on VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y too.
Let me try to understand what you are saying...
For archs which define VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING, every tick would result
in around 1000 units of cputime updates and since this is much much greater
than percpu_batch_counter, we end up taking spinlock on every tick.
If my above reading of the problem is correct, please look at my below comments.
> Index: b/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/kernel/sched.c 2009-04-28 14:18:36.000000000 +0900
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c 2009-04-28 15:18:07.000000000 +0900
> @@ -10117,6 +10117,7 @@ struct cpuacct {
> };
>
> struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys;
> +static s32 cpuacct_batch;
>
> /* return cpu accounting group corresponding to this container */
> static inline struct cpuacct *cgroup_ca(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> @@ -10146,6 +10147,9 @@ static struct cgroup_subsys_state *cpuac
> if (!ca->cpuusage)
> goto out_free_ca;
>
> + if (!cpuacct_batch)
> + cpuacct_batch = jiffies_to_cputime(percpu_counter_batch);
You essentially end up increasing the batch value from the default value
of max(32, nr_cpus*2).
> +
> for (i = 0; i < CPUACCT_STAT_NSTATS; i++)
> if (percpu_counter_init(&ca->cpustat[i], 0))
> goto out_free_counters;
> @@ -10342,7 +10346,7 @@ static void cpuacct_update_stats(struct
> ca = task_ca(tsk);
>
> do {
> - percpu_counter_add(&ca->cpustat[idx], val);
> + __percpu_counter_add(&ca->cpustat[idx], val, cpuacct_batch);
And you do this unconditionally which will affect all archs ? So you make
this behaviour default for archs which have VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n.
BTW, did you observe any real problem with the percpu counter spinlock ?
Regards,
Bharata.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-28 7:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-28 6:53 [PATCH] cpuacct: VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING don't prevent percpu cputime count KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-28 7:31 ` Bharata B Rao [this message]
2009-04-28 7:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-28 7:50 ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-28 8:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-28 10:37 ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-29 2:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-29 3:30 ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-28 22:08 ` Balbir Singh
2009-04-29 2:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-29 5:44 ` Balbir Singh
2009-04-29 6:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-29 3:21 ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-29 6:04 ` Balbir Singh
2009-04-29 6:09 ` Bharata B Rao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090428073151.GC3825@in.ibm.com \
--to=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=balajirrao@gmail.com \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.