public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] drivers: spi/i2c: account completions as iowait
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:59:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141102165943.GT10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1414936689-2707-1-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de>

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:58:07PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:

> However, researching the net, users currently interpret iowait entirely as
> blkio wait. Furthermore, io_schedule() calls delayacct_blkio_{start|end}() which
> worked fine for my tests with I2C but might show that iowait was really meant as
> blkiowait? So, should other subsystems use it?

I would tend to agree with that; historically this has always been about
blkio, not device io.

> To make it more confusing, some people (like Peter Zijlstra [1]) seem to like
> iowait gone, so maybe it is all not worth it?

Yeah, iowait accounting is terminally broken :-) Mostly because the
iowait is accounted per-cpu but that is a very tenuous relation because
the IO devices are not per IO and blocking tasks are not associated with
any particular CPU -- after all they're not consuming CPU time.

If people really think its worth; we could invent new IO-wait measure
that do make sense -- maybe, but the current thing is complete bollocks.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-11-02 16:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-02 13:58 [RFC 0/2] drivers: spi/i2c: account completions as iowait Wolfram Sang
2014-11-02 13:58 ` [RFC 1/2] i2c: " Wolfram Sang
2014-11-02 13:58 ` [RFC 2/2] spi: " Wolfram Sang
2014-11-02 16:59 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-11-03 19:31   ` [RFC 0/2] drivers: spi/i2c: " Wolfram Sang
2014-11-03 13:02 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-11-03 19:45   ` Wolfram Sang

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=20141102165943.GT10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /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