From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:27:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1291987635.6803.161.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1291987065.6803.151.camel@twins>
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 14:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> OK, so I ended up doing the same you did.. Still staring at that, 32bit
> will go very funny in the head once every so often. One possible
> solution would be to ignore the occasional abs(irq_delta) > 2 * delta.
>
> That would however result in an accounting discrepancy such that:
> clock_task + irq_time != clock
>
> Thoughts?
The brute force solution is a seqcount.. something like so:
---
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -1786,21 +1786,63 @@ static void deactivate_task(struct rq *r
#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING
/*
- * There are no locks covering percpu hardirq/softirq time.
- * They are only modified in account_system_vtime, on corresponding CPU
- * with interrupts disabled. So, writes are safe.
+ * There are no locks covering percpu hardirq/softirq time. They are only
+ * modified in account_system_vtime, on corresponding CPU with interrupts
+ * disabled. So, writes are safe.
+ *
* They are read and saved off onto struct rq in update_rq_clock().
- * This may result in other CPU reading this CPU's irq time and can
- * race with irq/account_system_vtime on this CPU. We would either get old
- * or new value (or semi updated value on 32 bit) with a side effect of
- * accounting a slice of irq time to wrong task when irq is in progress
- * while we read rq->clock. That is a worthy compromise in place of having
- * locks on each irq in account_system_time.
+ *
+ * This may result in other CPU reading this CPU's irq time and can race with
+ * irq/account_system_vtime on this CPU. We would either get old or new value
+ * with a side effect of accounting a slice of irq time to wrong task when irq
+ * is in progress while we read rq->clock. That is a worthy compromise in place
+ * of having locks on each irq in account_system_time.
*/
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, cpu_hardirq_time);
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, cpu_softirq_time);
-
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, irq_start_time);
+
+#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(seqcount_t, irq_time_seq);
+
+static inline void irq_time_write_begin(int cpu)
+{
+ write_seqcount_begin(&per_cpu(irq_time_seq, cpu));
+}
+
+static inline void irq_time_write_end(int cpu)
+{
+ write_seqcount_end(&per_cpu(irq_time_seq, cpu));
+}
+
+static inline u64 irq_time_read(int cpu)
+{
+ u64 irq_time;
+ unsigned seq;
+
+ do {
+ seq = read_seqcount_begin(&per_cpu(irq_time_seq, cpu));
+ irq_time = per_cpu(cpu_softirq_time, cpu) +
+ per_cpu(cpu_hardirq_time, cpu);
+ } while (read_seqcount_retry(&per_cpu(irq_time_seq, cpu), seq));
+
+ return irq_time;
+}
+#else /* CONFIG_64BIT */
+static inline void irq_time_write_begin(int cpu)
+{
+}
+
+static inline void irq_time_write_end(int cpu)
+{
+}
+
+static inline u64 irq_time_read(int cpu)
+{
+ return per_cpu(cpu_softirq_time, cpu) + per_cpu(cpu_hardirq_time, cpu);
+}
+#endif /* CONFIG_64BIT */
+
static int sched_clock_irqtime;
void enable_sched_clock_irqtime(void)
@@ -1820,6 +1862,7 @@ static void __account_system_vtime(int c
delta = now - per_cpu(irq_start_time, cpu);
per_cpu(irq_start_time, cpu) = now;
+ irq_time_write_begin(cpu);
if (hardirq_count())
per_cpu(cpu_hardirq_time, cpu) += delta;
/*
@@ -1830,6 +1873,7 @@ static void __account_system_vtime(int c
*/
else if (in_serving_softirq() && !(current->flags & PF_KSOFTIRQD))
per_cpu(cpu_softirq_time, cpu) += delta;
+ irq_time_write_end(cpu);
}
/*
@@ -1859,14 +1903,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(account_system_vtime);
static u64 irq_time_cpu(struct rq *rq)
{
- int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
/*
* See the comment in update_rq_clock_task(), ideally we'd update
* the *irq_time values using rq->clock here.
- *
- * As it stands, reading this from a remote cpu is buggy on 32bit.
*/
- return per_cpu(cpu_softirq_time, cpu) + per_cpu(cpu_hardirq_time, cpu);
+ return irq_time_read(cpu_of(rq));
}
static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-10 13:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-27 15:16 [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM Mikael Pettersson
2010-12-05 12:32 ` Mikael Pettersson
2010-12-05 13:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-05 14:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-05 16:07 ` Mikael Pettersson
2010-12-05 16:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 12:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 14:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 14:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 15:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 15:43 ` Linus Walleij
2010-12-08 20:42 ` john stultz
2010-12-08 23:31 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 17:43 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 17:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 18:11 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 18:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 22:21 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 23:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 23:35 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-10 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 13:27 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-12-10 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 16:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-10 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 17:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 18:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 18:39 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 18:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 19:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 20:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 20:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 20:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 20:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 20:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 21:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 21:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 21:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 17:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-10 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 18:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 19:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-10 19:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 19:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-13 14:33 ` Jack Daniel
2010-12-06 21:29 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
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=1291987635.6803.161.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).