From: Chris Friesen <cbf123@mail.usask.ca>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] sched/cputime: steal_account_process_tick() should return jiffies
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:18:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56DBBDB8.40305@mail.usask.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56DBAF6D.5010503@mail.usask.ca>
The callers of steal_account_process_tick() expect it to return
whether a jiffy should be considered stolen or not.
Currently the return value of steal_account_process_tick() is in
units of cputime, which vary between either jiffies or nsecs
depending on CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN.
If cputime has nsecs granularity and there is a tiny amount of
stolen time (a few nsecs, say) then we will consider the entire
tick stolen and will not account the tick on user/system/idle,
causing /proc/stats to show invalid data.
The fix is to change steal_account_process_tick() to accumulate
the stolen time and only account it once it's worth a jiffy.
(Thanks to Frederic Weisbecker for suggestions to fix a bug in my
first version of the patch.)
Signed-off-by: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com>
---
kernel/sched/cputime.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
index b2ab2ff..ab2b5fb 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
@@ -262,21 +262,21 @@ static __always_inline bool steal_account_process_tick(void)
#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
if (static_key_false(¶virt_steal_enabled)) {
u64 steal;
- cputime_t steal_ct;
+ unsigned long steal_jiffies;
steal = paravirt_steal_clock(smp_processor_id());
steal -= this_rq()->prev_steal_time;
/*
- * cputime_t may be less precise than nsecs (eg: if it's
- * based on jiffies). Lets cast the result to cputime
+ * steal is in nsecs but our caller is expecting steal
+ * time in jiffies. Lets cast the result to jiffies
* granularity and account the rest on the next rounds.
*/
- steal_ct = nsecs_to_cputime(steal);
- this_rq()->prev_steal_time += cputime_to_nsecs(steal_ct);
+ steal_jiffies = nsecs_to_jiffies(steal);
+ this_rq()->prev_steal_time += jiffies_to_nsecs(steal_jiffies);
- account_steal_time(steal_ct);
- return steal_ct;
+ account_steal_time(jiffies_to_cputime(steal_jiffies));
+ return steal_jiffies;
}
#endif
return false;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-06 5:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-04 22:59 [PATCH] steal_account_process_tick() should return jiffies Chris Friesen
2016-03-05 10:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-03-05 13:19 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2016-03-06 4:17 ` Chris Friesen
2016-03-06 5:18 ` Chris Friesen [this message]
2016-03-06 10:58 ` [PATCH v2] sched/cputime: " Thomas Gleixner
2016-03-08 12:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2016-03-08 13:18 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/cputime: Fix steal_account_process_tick() to always " tip-bot for Chris Friesen
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=56DBBDB8.40305@mail.usask.ca \
--to=cbf123@mail.usask.ca \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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