From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Fox <afox@redhat.com>,
Stephen Johnston <sjohnsto@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:37:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190719143742.GA32243@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190719134727.GV3463@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 07/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > $ ./stime 300000
> > > start=300000000000000
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300009124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300011124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300013124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300015124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300017124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300019124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300021124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300023124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300025124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300027124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299994875 ( 0) 300029124 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299996875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 299998875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300000875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300002875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300004875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300006875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300008875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300010875 (2000) 300029124 ( 0)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300012055 (1180) 300029944 ( 820)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300012055 ( 0) 300031944 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300012055 ( 0) 300033944 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300012055 ( 0) 300035944 (2000)
> > > ut(diff)/st(diff): 300012055 ( 0) 300037944 (2000)
> > >
> > > shows the problem even when sum_exec_runtime is not that big: 300000 secs.
> > >
> > > The new implementation of scale_stime() does the additional div64_u64_rem()
> > > in a loop but see the comment, as long it is used by cputime_adjust() this
> > > can happen only once.
> >
> > That only shows something after long long staring :/ There's no words on
> > what the output actually means or what would've been expected.
> >
> > Also, your example is incomplete; the below is a test for scale_stime();
> > from this we can see that the division results in too large a number,
> > but, important for our use-case in cputime_adjust(), it is a step
> > function (due to loss in precision) and for every plateau we shift
> > runtime into the wrong bucket.
>
> But I'm still confused, since in the long run, it should still end up
> with a proportionally divided user/system, irrespective of some short
> term wobblies.
Why?
Yes, statistically the numbers are proportionally divided.
but you will (probably) never see the real stime == 1000 && utime == 10000
numbers if you watch incrementally.
Just in case... yes I know that these numbers can only "converge" to the
reality, only their sum is correct. But people complain.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-19 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-18 13:18 [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-18 13:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-18 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-19 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-19 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-19 14:37 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2019-07-22 19:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-23 14:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-23 14:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-19 14:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-22 19:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 10:52 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2019-07-22 20:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-23 9:37 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2020-01-22 16:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-23 13:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-24 15:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-27 12:28 ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-15 17:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-19 17:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 18:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-19 18:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 19:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-20 15:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-20 15:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-20 20:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-21 13:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-06-16 12:21 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/cputime: Improve cputime_adjust() tip-bot2 for Oleg Nesterov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-07-18 13:15 [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise Oleg Nesterov
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=20190719143742.GA32243@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=afox@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=sjohnsto@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.