public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Cc: Dave Chiluk <chiluk@canonical.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:37:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130626093713.GA27385@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1372182534.7497.129.camel@marge.simpson.net>


* Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: 
> > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:46 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote: 
> > > Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
> > > respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
> > > roughly 4-8%.  Is this a bug, known behaviour, or consequence of the
> > > process being io bound?
> > 
> > All three I suppose.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5 -F 250 (my tick freq)
> 56.65%    netserver
> 43.35%         pert
> 
> perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5
> 67.16%  netserver
> 32.84%       pert
> 
> If you sample a high freq signal (netperf TCP_RR) at low freq (tick),
> then try to reproduce the original signal, (very familiar) distortion
> results.  Perf doesn't even care about softirq yada yada, so seems it's
> a pure sample rate thing.

Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the 
intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize 
the different weights.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-26  9:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-20 19:46 Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes Dave Chiluk
2013-06-25 16:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-25 17:48   ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-26  9:37     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-06-26 10:42       ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-26 15:50         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-26 16:01           ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-26 16:04           ` David Ahern
2013-06-26 16:10             ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-26 16:13               ` David Ahern

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=20130626093713.GA27385@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=bitbucket@online.de \
    --cc=chiluk@canonical.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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