From: Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, andrew@lunn.ch,
thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com,
gregory.clement@free-electrons.com, nadavh@marvell.com,
neta@marvell.com, mw@semihalf.com, jaz@semihalf.com,
tn@semihalf.com
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: enable fine-grained task level IRQ time accounting
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:22:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1501532531-4499-1-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> (raw)
Tests showed, that under certain conditions, the summary number of jiffies
spent on softirq/idle, which are counted by system statistics can be even
below 10% of expected value, resulting in false load presentation.
The issue was observed on the quad-core Marvell Armada 8k SoC, whose two
10G ports were bound into L2 bridge. Load was controlled by bidirectional
UDP traffic, produced by a packet generator. Under such condition,
the dominant load is softirq. With 100% single CPU occupation or without
any activity (all CPUs 100% idle), total number of jiffies is 10000 (2500
per each core) in 10s interval. Also with other kind of load this was
true.
However below a saturation threshold it was observed, that with CPU which
was occupied almost by softirqs only, the statistic were awkward. See
the mpstat output:
CPU %usr %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal %guest %gnice %idle
all 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.32
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.92
1 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.60
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Above would mean basically no total load, debug CPU0 occupied in 25%.
Raw statistics, printed every 10s from /proc/stat unveiled a root
cause - summary idle/softirq jiffies on loaded CPU were below 200,
i.e. over 90% samples lost. All problems were gone after enabling
fine granulity IRQ time accounting.
This patch fixes possible wrong statistics processing by enabling
CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING for arm64 platfroms, which is by
default done on other architectures, e.g. x86 and arm. Tests
showed no noticeable performance penalty, nor stability impact.
Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>
---
arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
index 44423e6..ed51ac6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ CONFIG_POSIX_MQUEUE=y
CONFIG_AUDIT=y
CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y
CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS=y
+CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING=y
CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT=y
CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT_V3=y
CONFIG_TASKSTATS=y
--
1.8.3.1
next reply other threads:[~2017-07-31 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-31 20:22 Marcin Wojtas [this message]
2017-08-02 13:11 ` Gregory CLEMENT
2017-08-02 14:33 ` Catalin Marinas
2017-08-03 12:26 ` Gregory CLEMENT
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=1501532531-4499-1-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com \
--to=mw@semihalf.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregory.clement@free-electrons.com \
--cc=jaz@semihalf.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nadavh@marvell.com \
--cc=neta@marvell.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=tn@semihalf.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®