public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Jan Glauber <jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	efault@gmx.de, dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com, anton@samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtual sched_clock() for s390
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:24:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1185197048.7816.19.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1185182149.5783.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 09:15 +0000, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > As with s390, 64-bit PowerPC also uses CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING. 
> > > That affects how tsk->utime and tsk->stime are accumulated (we call 
> > > account_user_time and account_system_time directly rather than calling 
> > > update_process_times) as well as the system hardirq/softirq time, idle 
> > > time, and stolen time.
> > 
> > tsk->utime and tsk->stime is only used for a single purpose: to 
> > determine the 'split' factor of how to split up the precise total time 
> > between user and system time.

At least for s390 and powerpc the utime and stime already contain a very
precise value how much time was spent in the user and system context.
For s390 the granularity is a microsecond. The other values nice, idle,
iowait, irq, softirq and steal are precise as well.

> > > When you say "precise task statistics for /proc", where are they 
> > > accumulated?  I don't see any changes to the way that tsk->utime and 
> > > ctime are computed.
> > 
> > we now use p->se.sum_exec_runtime that measures (in nanoseconds) the 
> > precise amount of time spent executing (sum of system and user time) - 
> > and ->stime and ->utime is used to determine the 'split'. [this allows 
> > us to gather ->stime and ->utime via low-resolution sampling, while 
> > keeping the 'total' precise. Accounting at every system entry point 
> > would be quite expensive on most platforms.]

With the exact accounting of utime and stime that would mean that
p->se.sum_exec_runtime is utime + stime, no?
Precise Accounting at every cpu context switch has some cost, but for
s390 it is not as bad as it sounds. We do 2 store-cpu-timer (STPT)
instructions, 2 64 bit adds and 2 64 bit subtracts. In terms of cycles
it is less than 30 cycles on each system entry on the latest machine.

> Using se.sum_exec_runtime to generate ->utime and ->stime breaks
> the process accounting we have on s390 (and probably on PowerPC too).
> With CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING we already have precise values in
> ->utime and ->stime. Can we make the calculation of the CFS-based time
> values conditional by CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING?

Imho, we just have to update utime and stime when the process accounting
values are requested and set se.sum_exec_runtime to the sum of utime and
stime for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.




      reply	other threads:[~2007-07-23 13:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-19 10:57 [PATCH] virtual sched_clock() for s390 Jan Glauber
2007-07-19 15:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-07-19 15:48   ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-07-19 16:00   ` Ingo Molnar
2007-07-19 19:20     ` Jan Glauber
2007-07-19 19:38       ` Ingo Molnar
2007-07-19 21:07         ` Jan Glauber
2007-07-20  1:01     ` Paul Mackerras
2007-07-20  6:03       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-07-20  7:22       ` Ingo Molnar
2007-07-23  9:15         ` Jan Glauber
2007-07-23 13:24           ` Martin Schwidefsky [this message]

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=1185197048.7816.19.camel@localhost \
    --to=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox