From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Cc: Dave Chiluk <chiluk@canonical.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:37:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130626093713.GA27385@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1372182534.7497.129.camel@marge.simpson.net>
* Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:46 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > > Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
> > > respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
> > > roughly 4-8%. Is this a bug, known behaviour, or consequence of the
> > > process being io bound?
> >
> > All three I suppose.
>
> P.S.
>
> perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5 -F 250 (my tick freq)
> 56.65% netserver
> 43.35% pert
>
> perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5
> 67.16% netserver
> 32.84% pert
>
> If you sample a high freq signal (netperf TCP_RR) at low freq (tick),
> then try to reproduce the original signal, (very familiar) distortion
> results. Perf doesn't even care about softirq yada yada, so seems it's
> a pure sample rate thing.
Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the
intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize
the different weights.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-26 9:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-20 19:46 Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes Dave Chiluk
2013-06-25 16:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-25 17:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-26 9:37 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-06-26 10:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-26 15:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-26 16:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-26 16:04 ` David Ahern
2013-06-26 16:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-26 16:13 ` David Ahern
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=20130626093713.GA27385@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bitbucket@online.de \
--cc=chiluk@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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.