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.
next prev parent 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