Re: [RFC PATCH 24/30] cputime: Increment kcpustat directly on irqtime account

[Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:15:45 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 03:41:28PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:23:54 +0100
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The irqtime is accounted is nsecs and stored in
> > > cpu_irq_time.hardirq_time and cpu_irq_time.softirq_time. Once the
> > > accumulated amount reaches a new jiffy, this one gets accounted to the
> > > kcpustat.
> > > 
> > > This was necessary when kcpustat was stored in cputime_t, which could at
> > > worst have a jiffies granularity. But now kcpustat is stored in nsecs
> > > so this whole discretization game with temporary irqtime storage has
> > > become unnecessary.
> > > 
> > > We can now directly account the irqtime to the kcpustat.
> > 
> > Isn't the issue here that two different approaches to cputime accounting
> > get mixed here? On the one hand a cputime_t based on jiffies and on the
> > other CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING which uses sched_clock_cpu() to create
> > the accounting deltas.
> 
> There is no other way really because cputime_t can wrap very low granularity
> time unit such as jiffies. And there is no way to account irqtime with jiffies
> since IRQ duration is supposed to be below 1 ms.
> 
> So irqtime is accounted with a high precision clock, nsecs based and periodically
> accounted as cputime_t once we accumulate enough for a cputime_t unit.
> 
> And turning cputime_t to nsecs simplifies that.

What would happen if cputime_t gets defined to nsecs for a jiffies based system?
The fact that a regular tick is used to create a cputime delta does not force
us to define cputime_t as a jiffies counter, no?

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.