From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jan Glauber <jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:11:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1187687476.7623.8.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070821084243.GB1144@elte.hu>
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:42 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> > > could you send that precise sched_clock() patch? It should be an order
> > > of magnitude simpler than the high-precision stime/utime tracking you
> > > already do, and it's needed for quality scheduling anyway.
> >
> > I have a question about that. I just played with sched_clock, and even
> > when I intentionally slow down sched_clock by a factor of 2, my cpu
> > bound process gets 100 % in top. If this is intentional, I dont
> > understand how a virtualized sched_clock would fix the accounting
> > change?
>
> hm, does on s390 scheduler_tick() get driven in virtual time or in real
> time? The very latest scheduler code will enforce a minimum rate of
> sched_clock() across two scheduler_tick() calls (in rc3 and later
> kernels). If sched_clock() "slows down" but scheduler_tick() still has a
> real-time frequency then that impacts the quality of scheduling. So
> scheduler_tick() and sched_clock() must really have the same behavior
> (either both are virtual or both are real), so that scheduling becomes
> invariant to steal-time.
scheduler_tick() is based on the HZ timer which uses the TOD clock =
real time. sched_clock() currently uses the TOD clock as well so in
regard to the new scheduler we currently do not have a problem. We have
a problem with cpu time accounting, the change to the /proc code breaks
the precise accounting on s390. To solve the cpu time accounting we need
to change sched_clock() to the cpu timer = virtual time. To change the
scheduler_tick() as well requires another patch and I fear it would
complicate things in the s390 backend.
And if you say that the scheduling becomes invariant to steal-time, how
is the cpu time accounting via sum_exec supposed to work if it does not
take steal-time into account ?
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-21 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-12 16:32 [git pull request] scheduler updates Ingo Molnar
2007-08-14 8:37 ` [accounting regression since rc1] " Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-16 8:17 ` [PATCH][RFC] Re: accounting regression since rc1 Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-20 15:45 ` [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates Ingo Molnar
2007-08-20 17:03 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-20 18:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-20 18:33 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-20 19:00 ` Balbir Singh
2007-08-20 19:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 7:20 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-20 19:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 7:00 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 9:18 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-20 23:07 ` Paul Mackerras
2007-08-21 2:18 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-21 7:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 10:07 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-21 10:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:15 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-21 11:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 8:17 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 9:11 ` Martin Schwidefsky [this message]
2007-08-21 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 9:48 ` Paul Mackerras
2007-08-21 10:38 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-21 11:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:58 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-21 10:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 10:43 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 11:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:24 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 11:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:58 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 12:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 12:57 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-21 11:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-22 7:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-22 7:59 ` Ingo Molnar
[not found] ` <200708141032.47235.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708140835240.30176@woody.linux-foundation.org>
2007-08-14 18:19 ` Christian Borntraeger
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=1187687476.7623.8.camel@localhost \
--to=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox