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.
next prev parent 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