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>,
	Shaun Ruffell <sruffell@digium.com>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Export ns irqtimes from IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING through /proc/stat
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:23:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1287750199.15336.32.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Yi4U_TjJZLGo4v1f6fjLYesO9GCxLnT42qkt0@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 12:25 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> > I'd do:
> >
> >  - hardirq
> >  - softirq
> >  - user
> >  - system
> >     - guest
> >     - really system
> >  - idle
> >
> > Since otherwise tiny slices of softirq would need to wait for a system
> > tick to happen before you fold them.
> >
> > Also, it is possible that in a single tick multiple counters overflow
> > the jiffy boundary, so something like:
> >
> >  if (irqtime_account_hi_update())
> >        cpustat->irq = ...
> >
> >  if (irqtime_account_si_update())
> >        cpustate->softirq = ...
> >
> >  if (user_tick) {
> >  } else if (...) {
> >
> >  } else ...
> >
> > would seem like the better approach.
> >
> 
> I am not sure about checking for both si and hi. That would result in
> double accounting a tick and have some side-effects.

Depends on how you look at it I guess, in order for this to occur a
previous tick would have to be not reported, eg. consider the case where
during two consecutive ticks the time is 50% for both sirq and hirq.

Then, after the first tick, nothing will have progressed because they're
both at 50% of a tick, after the second tick both will have reached a
full jiffy's worth of time and need to roll over.

In total two ticks happened, two ticks got accounted, {0,2}, your
approach would make it look like {0,1,1} two ticks worth of work
happened, two ticks got accounted, but it takes 3 ticks for that to
happen.

> Regarding moving si above user: Yes. That seems good.
> idle after system, That may not make so much of a difference, as there
> is no special way to check for system time, other than !idle. 

Right, so about user and system... we have a bit of a problem there.
There is overlap between si/hi and system. ksoftirqd time would be
accounted as system and si.

Then there is the whole issue of per-task accounting not actually using
the system/user ticks. They use the ticks as a ratio for
se.sum_exec_runtime.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-10-22 12:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-10-20 22:48 [PATCH 0/5] Proper kernel irq time reporting -v0 Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 22:48 ` [PATCH 1/6] Free up pf flag PF_KSOFTIRQD Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-21  5:23   ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-21 14:36     ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-21 14:58       ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-21 17:03         ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-21 15:13   ` Christoph Lameter
2010-10-21 17:06     ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 22:48 ` [PATCH 2/6] Add nsecs_to_cputime64 interface for asm-generic Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 22:48 ` [PATCH 3/6] Refactor account_system_time separating id and actual update Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 22:49 ` [PATCH 4/6] Export ns irqtimes from IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING through /proc/stat Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-21 14:44   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-21 19:25     ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-22 12:23       ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-10-22 23:34         ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 22:49 ` [PATCH 5/6] Account ksoftirq time as cpustat softirq Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-21 14:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-21 19:10     ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-21 17:25 ` [PATCH 0/5] Proper kernel irq time reporting -v0 Shaun Ruffell

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=1287750199.15336.32.camel@twins \
    --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=sruffell@digium.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=venki@google.com \
    --cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.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