From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tick/nohz: Fix wrong user and system time accouting against vtime sampling
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:01:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170410180143.GA18098@lerouge> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704101738240.2906@nanos>
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 05:45:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Offset the tick to avert jiffies_lock contention, and all ticks
> > + * alignment in order that the vtime sampling does not end up "in
> > + * phase" with the jiffies incrementing.
> > + */
> > + if (sched_skew_tick || tick_nohz_full_enabled()) {
> > u64 offset = ktime_to_ns(tick_period) >> 1;
> > do_div(offset, num_possible_cpus());
> > offset *= smp_processor_id();
>
> That's not a fix, that's just papering over the problem.
>
> offset = 1ms / 2 = 500us = 500000ns;
> offset /= 144 = 3472ns
>
> So CPU0 and CPU1 ticks are ~3 microseconds apart. That merily reduces the
> probability of the issue, but does not prevent it.
I worried about it but didn't realize it could be that tight.
So the alternative is the solution involving sched_clock() as the source for
cputime. Wanpeng Li could you please resubmit your patch that does that?
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-10 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-06 6:36 [PATCH] tick/nohz: Fix wrong user and system time accouting against vtime sampling Wanpeng Li
2017-04-06 14:36 ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-07 16:58 ` Luiz Capitulino
2017-04-10 15:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-10 18:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2017-04-10 21:51 ` Wanpeng Li
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=20170410180143.GA18098@lerouge \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=lcapitulino@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wanpeng.li@hotmail.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.