From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
hpa@zytor.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
tglx@linutronix.de,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] cputime: remove scaling
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:06:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130411150637.GB15699@somewhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130411083634.GB1380@redhat.com>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:36:35AM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > I really prefer robust kernel side accounting/instrumentation.
>
> We have CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING and CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN.
> Perhaps we can change to use one of those options by default. I wonder
> if the additional performance cost related with them is really something
> that we should care about. Are there any measurement that show those
> will make performance worse ?
CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING also make use of scaling. And CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN
involves too much overhead on IO-bound workloads. It's mostly good for
undisturbed userspace bound workloads (few IRQs, few exceptions, few syscalls).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-11 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-28 16:53 [RFC 0/4] do not make cputime scaling in kernel Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-03-28 16:53 ` [RFC 1/4] cputime: change parameter of thread_group_cputime_adjusted Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-03-28 16:53 ` [RFC 2/4] procfs: add sum_exec_runtime to /proc/PID/stat Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-03-28 16:53 ` [RFC 3/4] sched,proc: add csum_sched_runtime Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-03-28 16:53 ` [RFC 4/4] cputime: remove scaling Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-04-10 12:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-10 14:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-11 8:37 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-04-11 15:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-11 8:36 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-04-11 15:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
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=20130411150637.GB15699@somewhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.