Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock

Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-15T06:28:40Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 07:19:31AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> For the N threads doing this on N cores case, seems rq->lock hammering
> will still be a source of major box wide pain. Is there any correctness
> reason to add up unaccounted ->on_cpu beans, or is that just value
> added?

That delta can be arbitrarily large with nohz_full. And without
nohz_full the error is nr_cpus*TICK_NSEC, which I bet is larger than the
reported clock resolution.

Having a non-constant error bound is annoying for you never quite know
what to expect.

Also; why do we care about PROCESS_CPUTIME? People should really not use
it. What are the 'valid' usecases you guys care about?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]