public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] si time accounting accounts bh_disable'd time to si -v3
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 02:34:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1286066056.2144.114.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikwUh57PKNk_fWzXApoYnCqK9NFi-MzSY-QKUc5@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 08:42 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> 
> > The make in_serving_softirq() be something like:
> >  (preempt_count() & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET) || (current->flags & PF_SOFTIRQ)
> >
> 
> Yes. I would also need in_softirq_at_hardirq_tail() for accounting calls :)

Well, you could open-code it there or something.

> >> Also, ksoftirqd adds to softirq counts, does trace softirq, etc. So,
> >> it kind of made sense to add the time also to softirq stats as well.
> >> If we dont account time to softirq stats, then if some user is looking
> >> at say time per softirq using the softirq count will be misled. No?
> >
> > Simply add back the task accounting when you report it?
> >
> >> In the other thread you mentioned doing that will cause problems. Were
> >> you thinking of scheduler issues or are there other problems charging
> >> softirq time this way?
> >
> > Of course there are.. you're double accounting the time of ksoftirqd,
> > and worse, you're adding that back into the equation as part of the !
> > sched_fair time.
> >
> 
> No. There should not be any double accounting with this current
> change. We account softirq processing both at hardirq tail and
> ksoftirqd as CPU softirq time. It will be taken out of ksoftirqd sched
> exec time as with any other thread. And it will be taken out of fair
> time available on the CPU as well. Which to me seems to be the right
> thing to do, as the this is more coupled with the CPU and ksoftirqd is
> just giving context for softirqd to run.

But ksoftirqd is a SCHED_OTHER task, so by taking it out of its runtime
the scheduler will get all confused.

> Changing only hardirq tail to have SOFTIRQ_OFFSET and changing
> ksoftirqd to SOFTIRQ_OFFSET*2 would result in these additional
> ksoftirqd softirqs staying as the part of sched_fair time.
> 
> Or I am totally missing something here? 

Please keep ksoftirq scheduling normal, if people want it to be another
scheduling class, let them change that, but since its a task it should
be a normal task and get scheduled like everybody else, not have some
magic properties.



  reply	other threads:[~2010-10-03  0:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-29 19:21 Proper kernel irq time accounting -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-29 19:21 ` [PATCH 1/7] si time accounting accounts bh_disable'd time to si -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-30 11:04   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-30 16:26     ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-01 23:16       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-02 15:42         ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-03  0:34           ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-10-04 16:54             ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-29 19:21 ` [PATCH 2/7] Consolidate account_system_vtime extern declaration -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-29 19:21 ` [PATCH 3/7] Add IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING, finer accounting of irq time -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-30 11:06   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-30 16:29     ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-30 20:38       ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-01 11:46         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-01 16:51           ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-01 17:29             ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-01 23:14               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-01 23:32                 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-02 10:53                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-02 15:26                     ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-03  0:26                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-01 11:45       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-29 19:21 ` [PATCH 4/7] x86: Add IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING in x86 -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-29 19:21 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched: Do not account irq time to current task -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-29 19:21 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched: Remove irq time from available CPU power -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-29 19:21 ` [PATCH 7/7] Export per cpu hardirq and softirq time in proc -v3 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-30  7:59 ` Proper kernel irq time accounting -v3 Andi Kleen
2010-09-30 16:37   ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-09-30 17:36     ` Andi Kleen

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=1286066056.2144.114.camel@laptop \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=venki@google.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