public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
	stable@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:05:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710291305.52992.elendil@planet.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4714B5BF.1090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hello Balbir,

On Tuesday 16 October 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2007 schrieb Balbir Singh:
> >> I am trying to think out loud as to what the root cause of the problem
> >> might be. In one of the discussion threads, I saw utime going
> >> backwards, which seemed very odd, I suspect that those are rounding
> >> errors.
> >>
> >> I don't understand your explanation below
> >>
> >> Initially utime = 9, stime = 0, sum_exec_runtime = S1
> >>
> >> Later
> >>
> >> utime = 9, stime = 1, sum_exec_runtime = S2
> >>
> >> We can be sure that S >= (utime + stime)
> >
> > I think here is the problem. How can we be sure? We cant. utime and
> > stime are sampled, so they can be largely off in any direction,if the
> > program sleeps often and manages to synchronize itself to the timer
> > tick. Lets say a program only does a simple system call and then
> > sleeps. So sum_exec_runtime is increased by lets say 1000 cycles on a
> > 1Ghz box which means 1000ns. If now the timer tick happens exactly at
> > this moment, stime is increased by 1 tick = 1000000ns.
>
> Yes, I thought of that just after I sent out my email. In the case that
> you mention, the utime and stime accounting is incorrect anyway :-)
> I think we need to find a better solution. I was going to propose that
> we round correctly in (the divisions in)
>
> 1. task_utime()
> 2. clock_t_to_cputime()
>
> I suspect we'll need to round task_utime() to p->utime if the value of
> task_utime() < p->utime and the same thing for task_stime(). I've tried
> reproducing the problem on my UML setup without any success. Let me
> try and grab an x86 box.

Any progress on this issue? I noticed that it's still there in current git.

If a better implementation is not expected any time soon, how about an ACK 
on the reversion patch Christian proposed in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/16/76
so we can at least get rid of the regression?

Thanks,
Frans Pop

  reply	other threads:[~2007-10-29 12:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-10-12 20:31 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage Frans Pop
2007-10-12 21:22 ` [stable] " Greg KH
2007-10-13  7:53   ` Frans Pop
2007-10-14 20:36     ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16  8:29       ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16  9:30         ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-16 10:11           ` Frans Pop
2007-10-16 10:38             ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-16 10:34           ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16 12:59             ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 12:05               ` Frans Pop [this message]
2007-10-29 12:31                 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 20:04                   ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-29 20:33                     ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-29 20:41                       ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-29 21:11                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-29 21:22                         ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 21:43                     ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 23:19                       ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 23:22                         ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-30 20:22                           ` Otavio Salvador
2007-10-29 23:24                         ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-30  5:56                       ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-30  6:00                         ` Balbir Singh

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=200710291305.52992.elendil@planet.nl \
    --to=elendil@planet.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=stable@kernel.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