From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Finer granularity and task/cgroup irq time accounting
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:30:58 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100525070058.GM3519@balbir.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1274746282-21533-1-git-send-email-venki@google.com>
* Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com> [2010-05-24 17:11:18]:
> Currently, the softirq and hardirq time reporting is only done at the
> CPU level. There are usecases where reporting this time against task
> or task groups or cgroups will be useful for user/administrator
> in terms of resource planning and utilization charging. Also, as the
> accoounting is already done at the CPU level, reporting the same at
> the task level does not add any significant computational overhead
> other than task level storage (patch 1).
>
> The softirq/hardirq statistics commonly done based on tick based sampling.
> Though some archs have CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING based fine granularity
> accounting. Having similar mechanism to get fine granularity accounting
> on x86 will be a major challenge, given the state of TSC reliability
> on various platforms and also the overhead it may add in common paths
> like syscall entry exit.
>
> An alternative is to have a generic (sched_clock based) and configurable
> fine-granularity accounting of si and hi time which can be reported
> over the /proc/<pid>/stat API (patch 2).
>
> Patch 3 and 4 are exporting this info at the cgroup level.
>
> Does exposing this additional info to user makes sense? Any feedback on
> the way it is done in this patchset?
>
> This precise irq time based on sched_clock() provides some potential
> opportunities to handle the softirq time charging in a more fair way.
> Specifically cases where an unrelated task is being penalized for
> irq load on that CPU.
> * With network Receive Flow Steering, for example; We can potentially
> do things like not charge receive softirq time to the process that is
> currently running and charge it instead to the actual consumer of
> the receive (in recvmsg, for example).
> * We can reduce the power of the CPU to account for softirq/hardirq
> load, in order to increase the scheduler fairness for tasks running on
> that CPU.
Could you also add to this section or the documentation, what
interfaces are exported or impacted.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Venki
>
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-25 7:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-25 0:11 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Finer granularity and task/cgroup irq time accounting Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-05-25 0:11 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] sched: Track and export per task [hard|soft]irq time Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-05-25 0:11 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: Add IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING, finer accounting of irq time to task Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-05-25 0:11 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] sched: Generalize cpuacct usage tracking making it simpler to add new stats Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-05-25 0:11 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched: Export irq times through cpuacct cgroup Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-05-25 6:35 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: Add IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING, finer accounting of irq time to task Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-25 21:40 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-05-26 6:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-25 9:13 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] sched: Track and export per task [hard|soft]irq time Balbir Singh
2010-05-25 21:45 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-05-25 7:00 ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2010-05-25 8:14 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Finer granularity and task/cgroup irq time accounting Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-25 17:05 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
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=20100525070058.GM3519@balbir.in.ibm.com \
--to=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=venki@google.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