public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Balaji Rao <balajirrao@gmail.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuacct: VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING don't prevent percpu cputime count
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:01:51 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090428073151.GC3825@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090428153611.EBC6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:53:32PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> 
> I'm not cpuacct expert. please give me comment.
> 
> ====================
> Subject: [PATCH] cpuacct: VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING don't prevent percpu cputime caching
> 
> impact: little performance improvement
> 
> cpuacct_update_stats() is called at every tick updating. and it use percpu_counter
> for avoiding performance degression.
> 
> Unfortunately, it doesn't works on VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y environment properly.
> if VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y, every tick update much than 1000 cputime.
> Thus every percpu_counter_add() makes spinlock grabbing and update non-percpu-variable.
> 
> This patch change the batch rule. now, every cpu can store "percpu_counter_bach x jiffies"
> cputime in percpu cache.
> it mean this patch don't have behavior change if VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n, but
> works well on VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y too.

Let me try to understand what you are saying...

For archs which define VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING, every tick would result
in around 1000 units of cputime updates and since this is much much greater
than percpu_batch_counter, we end up taking spinlock on every tick.

If my above reading of the problem is correct, please look at my below comments.

> Index: b/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/kernel/sched.c	2009-04-28 14:18:36.000000000 +0900
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c	2009-04-28 15:18:07.000000000 +0900
> @@ -10117,6 +10117,7 @@ struct cpuacct {
>  };
> 
>  struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys;
> +static s32 cpuacct_batch;
> 
>  /* return cpu accounting group corresponding to this container */
>  static inline struct cpuacct *cgroup_ca(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> @@ -10146,6 +10147,9 @@ static struct cgroup_subsys_state *cpuac
>  	if (!ca->cpuusage)
>  		goto out_free_ca;
> 
> +	if (!cpuacct_batch)
> +		cpuacct_batch = jiffies_to_cputime(percpu_counter_batch);

You essentially end up increasing the batch value from the default value
of max(32, nr_cpus*2). 

> +
>  	for (i = 0; i < CPUACCT_STAT_NSTATS; i++)
>  		if (percpu_counter_init(&ca->cpustat[i], 0))
>  			goto out_free_counters;
> @@ -10342,7 +10346,7 @@ static void cpuacct_update_stats(struct 
>  	ca = task_ca(tsk);
> 
>  	do {
> -		percpu_counter_add(&ca->cpustat[idx], val);
> +		__percpu_counter_add(&ca->cpustat[idx], val, cpuacct_batch);

And you do this unconditionally which will affect all archs ? So you make
this behaviour default for archs which have VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n.

BTW, did you observe any real problem with the percpu counter spinlock ?

Regards,
Bharata.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-28  7:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-28  6:53 [PATCH] cpuacct: VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING don't prevent percpu cputime count KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-28  7:31 ` Bharata B Rao [this message]
2009-04-28  7:38   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-28  7:50     ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-28  8:10       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-28 10:37         ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-29  2:31           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-29  3:30             ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-28 22:08 ` Balbir Singh
2009-04-29  2:26   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-29  5:44     ` Balbir Singh
2009-04-29  6:08       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-29  3:21   ` Bharata B Rao
2009-04-29  6:04     ` Balbir Singh
2009-04-29  6:09       ` Bharata B Rao

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=20090428073151.GC3825@in.ibm.com \
    --to=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=balajirrao@gmail.com \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.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