public inbox for linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] tick-sched: fix idle and iowait sleeptime accounting vs CPU hotplug
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 17:35:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240115163555.1004144-1-hca@linux.ibm.com> (raw)

When offlining and onlining CPUs the overall reported idle and iowait
times as reported by /proc/stat jump backward and forward:

> cat /proc/stat
cpu  132 0 176 225249 47 6 6 21 0 0
cpu0 80 0 115 112575 33 3 4 18 0 0
cpu1 52 0 60 112673 13 3 1 2 0 0

> chcpu -d 1
> cat /proc/stat
cpu  133 0 177 226681 47 6 6 21 0 0
cpu0 80 0 116 113387 33 3 4 18 0 0

> chcpu -e 1
> cat /proc/stat
cpu  133 0 178 114431 33 6 6 21 0 0 <---- jump backward
cpu0 80 0 116 114247 33 3 4 18 0 0
cpu1 52 0 61 183 0 3 1 2 0 0        <---- idle + iowait start with 0

> chcpu -d 1
> cat /proc/stat
cpu  133 0 178 228956 47 6 6 21 0 0 <---- jump forward
cpu0 81 0 117 114929 33 3 4 18 0 0

Reason for this is that get_idle_time() in fs/proc/stat.c has different
sources for both values depending on if a CPU is online or offline:

- if a CPU is online the values may be taken from its per cpu
  tick_cpu_sched structure

- if a CPU is offline the values are taken from its per cpu cpustat
  structure

The problem is that the per cpu tick_cpu_sched structure is set to zero on
CPU offline. See tick_cancel_sched_timer() in kernel/time/tick-sched.c.

Therefore when a CPU is brought offline and online afterwards both its idle
and iowait sleeptime will be zero, causing a jump backward in total system
idle and iowait sleeptime. In a similar way if a CPU is then brought
offline again the total idle and iowait sleeptimes will jump forward.

It looks like this behavior was introduced with commit 4b0c0f294f60
("tick: Cleanup NOHZ per cpu data on cpu down").

This was only noticed now on s390, since we switched to generic idle time
reporting with commit be76ea614460 ("s390/idle: remove arch_cpu_idle_time()
and corresponding code").

Fix this by preserving the values of idle_sleeptime and iowait_sleeptime
members of the per-cpu tick_sched structure on CPU hotplug.

Fixes: 4b0c0f294f60 ("tick: Cleanup NOHZ per cpu data on cpu down")
Reported-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
---
 kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
index a17d26002831..d2501673028d 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -1576,13 +1576,18 @@ void tick_setup_sched_timer(void)
 void tick_cancel_sched_timer(int cpu)
 {
 	struct tick_sched *ts = &per_cpu(tick_cpu_sched, cpu);
+	ktime_t idle_sleeptime, iowait_sleeptime;
 
 # ifdef CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS
 	if (ts->sched_timer.base)
 		hrtimer_cancel(&ts->sched_timer);
 # endif
 
+	idle_sleeptime = ts->idle_sleeptime;
+	iowait_sleeptime = ts->iowait_sleeptime;
 	memset(ts, 0, sizeof(*ts));
+	ts->idle_sleeptime = idle_sleeptime;
+	ts->iowait_sleeptime = iowait_sleeptime;
 }
 #endif
 
-- 
2.40.1


             reply	other threads:[~2024-01-15 16:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-15 16:35 Heiko Carstens [this message]
2024-01-17  0:43 ` [PATCH] tick-sched: fix idle and iowait sleeptime accounting vs CPU hotplug Frederic Weisbecker
2024-01-22 18:19 ` Tim Chen
2024-01-22 22:31   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-01-22 23:33     ` Tim Chen

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=20240115163555.1004144-1-hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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