Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

Wanpeng Li
2016-08-10T19:23:54Z

2016-08-10 7:07 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>:
> 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>:
>> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> Hi Rik,
>>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>:
>>> > From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
>>> >
>>> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks'
>>> > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq
>>> > time.
>>> >
>>> > This is inaccurate if only a subset of the time was actually spent
>>> > handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of the ticks
>>> > during
>>> > a period as irq time, when there was some irq and some softirq
>>> > time.
>>> >
>>> > This can actually happen when irqtime_account_process_tick is
>>> > called
>>> > from account_idle_ticks, which can pass a larger number of ticks
>>> > down
>>> > all at once.
>>> >
>>> > Fix this by changing irqtime_account_hi_update,
>>> > irqtime_account_si_update,
>>> > and steal_account_process_ticks to work with cputime_t time units,
>>> > and
>>> > return the amount of time spent in each mode.
>>>
>>> Do we need to minus st cputime from idle cputime in
>>> account_idle_ticks() when noirqtime is true? I try to add this logic
>>> w/ noirqtime and idle=poll boot parameter for a full dynticks guest,
>>> however, there is no difference, where I miss?
>>
>> Yes, you are right. The code in account_idle_ticks()
>> could use the same treatment.
>>
>> I am not sure why it would not work, though...
>
> I will try nohz idle kvm guest and other more tests, a patch will be
> sent out once successful.

After apply the same logic to account_idle_ticks() for nohz idle kvm
guest(noirqtime, idle=poll, one pCPU and four vCPUs), the average idle
drop from 56.8% to 54.75%, I think it makes sense to make a formal
patch.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li