From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Cc: bmaurer@fb.com, rkroll@fb.com, kernel-team@fb.com,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: change where we report sched stats
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 04:34:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1418268856.5263.46.camel@marge.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5488BFC5.3080001@fb.com>
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 16:48 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 12/10/2014 01:23 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 13:21 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >
> >> This patch moves stat stuff to after the schedule, right as we are waking up,
> >
> > But sleep/block ends when the task is awakened/enqueued, not when it
> > gets the CPU. You're adding scheduling latency, breaking accounting.
> >
>
> Yes I'm aware of that. I don't care if the delay time is slightly
> higher than normal, I care about knowing exactly why we were sleeping to
> begin with. I suppose I could leave the accounting part where it is and
> then just fire the tracepoint when it's put on the CPU so we get the
> best of both worlds, but honestly I don't feel like adding the extra
> scheduling latency into the accounting is that big of a deal. Thanks,
I think sleep/iowait should remain what they are, sleep/iowait end at
wakeup. I don't think waker trace is useless either for that matter.
Who/when ends a sleep period is just as much a part of the picture as
what triggered that sleep. Waker scheduling latency, thumb twiddling
etc. extend sleep.
Shrug, maintainer call. I don't recall ever having any difficulty
determining why a task went to sleep, so don't get it.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-11 3:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-09 18:21 Josef Bacik
2014-12-10 6:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-12-10 21:48 ` Josef Bacik
2014-12-11 3:34 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2014-12-11 14:55 ` Josef Bacik
2014-12-14 9:56 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1418268856.5263.46.camel@marge.simpson.net \
--to=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=bmaurer@fb.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rkroll@fb.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome