From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and IO Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 10:44:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20180907144422.GA11088@cmpxchg.org> References: <20180828172258.3185-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20180828172258.3185-9-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20180907101634.GO24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Xi0HJJ6Xvyxvxsf/RyFY/V2+9m/vHC2cCblt4mYHDoY=; b=HvDjD5P/BQXbDDhdfdULZUDgagz+ZGKyCQvSzj/DeNvuO2arah2uzdmDwHPNXd7BQo zmDnf0eddWXISnrmg/ks7id5jbGnPWFH1tOR9zeIMBXWVSxPxN44rGFFbUsTtozjR2MH oskyRNwOk+vRcUN6FCRDHX5+G7FR/AVhAbQVddoD22G2GNa/CBT5d8yY7idPuz+xNklS iEoXOia4czMku3vq+Vfajl+cymvDo6yB1aNgj+8BqMwRtvQhFs82QhSV+5kZm249krK5 S5mLQRhVMptA9Djd+5avCf/1kPnhv+eth+7ra+Exjhk0UXUJv33qvDIy8rJpW0z1fQOw 4LiA== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180907101634.GO24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Tejun Heo , Suren Baghdasaryan , Daniel Drake , Vinayak Menon , Christopher Lameter , Peter Enderborg , Shakeel Butt , Mike Galbraith , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:22:57PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > +enum psi_states { > > + PSI_IO_SOME, > > + PSI_IO_FULL, > > + PSI_MEM_SOME, > > + PSI_MEM_FULL, > > + PSI_CPU_SOME, > > + /* Only per-CPU, to weigh the CPU in the global average: */ > > + PSI_NONIDLE, > > + NR_PSI_STATES, > > +}; > > > +static u32 get_recent_time(struct psi_group *group, int cpu, > > + enum psi_states state) > > +{ > > + struct psi_group_cpu *groupc = per_cpu_ptr(group->pcpu, cpu); > > + unsigned int seq; > > + u32 time, delta; > > + > > + do { > > + seq = read_seqcount_begin(&groupc->seq); > > + > > + time = groupc->times[state]; > > + /* > > + * In addition to already concluded states, we also > > + * incorporate currently active states on the CPU, > > + * since states may last for many sampling periods. > > + * > > + * This way we keep our delta sampling buckets small > > + * (u32) and our reported pressure close to what's > > + * actually happening. > > + */ > > + if (test_state(groupc->tasks, state)) > > + time += cpu_clock(cpu) - groupc->state_start; > > + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&groupc->seq, seq)); > > + > > + delta = time - groupc->times_prev[state]; > > + groupc->times_prev[state] = time; > > + > > + return delta; > > +} > > > +static bool update_stats(struct psi_group *group) > > +{ > > + u64 deltas[NR_PSI_STATES - 1] = { 0, }; > > + unsigned long missed_periods = 0; > > + unsigned long nonidle_total = 0; > > + u64 now, expires, period; > > + int cpu; > > + int s; > > + > > + mutex_lock(&group->stat_lock); > > + > > + /* > > + * Collect the per-cpu time buckets and average them into a > > + * single time sample that is normalized to wallclock time. > > + * > > + * For averaging, each CPU is weighted by its non-idle time in > > + * the sampling period. This eliminates artifacts from uneven > > + * loading, or even entirely idle CPUs. > > + */ > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { > > + u32 nonidle; > > + > > + nonidle = get_recent_time(group, cpu, PSI_NONIDLE); > > + nonidle = nsecs_to_jiffies(nonidle); > > + nonidle_total += nonidle; > > + > > + for (s = 0; s < PSI_NONIDLE; s++) { > > + u32 delta; > > + > > + delta = get_recent_time(group, cpu, s); > > + deltas[s] += (u64)delta * nonidle; > > + } > > + } > > This does the whole seqcount thing 6x, which is a bit of a waste. [...] > It's a bit cumbersome, but that's because of C. I was actually debating exactly this with Suren before, but since this is a super cold path I went with readability. I was also thinking that restarts could happen quite regularly under heavy scheduler load, and so keeping the individual retry sections small could be helpful - but I didn't instrument this in any way. No strong opinion from me, I can send an updated patch if you prefer.