From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Jan Glauber <jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:37:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200708141037.48001.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070812163225.GA11996@elte.hu>
This is a 2nd try with correct email address, sorry for the duplicates.
Am Sonntag, 12. August 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> Linus, please pull the latest scheduler git tree from:
Hello Ingo,
this is a followup to the discussion in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/19/538
Since 2.6.12, s390 already does precise accouting for system and user time.
Depending on CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING, we use two 64bit hardware timers on
s390: the first returns the wall clock time and is stepped even if the
virtual cpu is not backed by a physical cpu. The second timer is only
stepped, when the virtual cpu is backed by a physical cpu. The timers have a
very high accurancy, and the architecture guarantees that bit 51 is increased
by one/microsecond. We store both timers on each context switch, irq,
syscall, and machinecheck in entry.S. The calculation are made in
arch/s390/kernel/vtime.c in accouting_system_vtime and friends with
microsecond accurracy. This is also used for irq accouting (see the
definition of irq_enter). It basically boils down to precise numbers in the
cpu stat and the utime/stime for processes as well as knowledge about time
stolen by the hypervisor.
With CFS the accounting was changed, and everything is now based on
sum_exec_runtime. There is now an accounting regression on s390 (and maybe
ppc64), as the default jiffy implemenation does not know anything about
virtual cpus.
While looking for a solution, I started with a very quick hack and reverted
b27f03d4bdc145a09fb7b0c0e004b29f1ee555fa for the procfs related changes. If I
revert that commit, it seems that I get the old behaviour - but of course
this is just a hack.
I see some options now:
1. Jan could finish his sched_clock implementation for s390 and we would get
close to the precise numbers. This would also let CFS make better decisions.
Downside: its not as precise as before as we do some math on the numbers and
it will burn cycles to compute numbers we already have
(utime=sum*utime/stime).
2. set sum_exec_runtime based on the precise utime and stime. Dont know enough
about CFS if this would show different scheduling behaviour than 1
3. ifdef fs/proc/array.c depending on CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING. This will
save some cycles, and the numbers are precise to a microsecond. Downside: the
scheduler gets no information about virtual cpus and steal time so its
probably not completely fair
4. implement sched_clock AND reuse the exisiting utime and stime numbers.
5. other clever solutions I cannot see
Any suggestions?
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-14 8:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-12 16:32 [git pull request] " Ingo Molnar
2007-08-14 8:37 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2007-08-16 8:17 ` [PATCH][RFC] Re: accounting regression since rc1 Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-20 15:45 ` [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates Ingo Molnar
2007-08-20 17:03 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-20 18:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-20 18:33 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-20 19:00 ` Balbir Singh
2007-08-20 19:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 7:20 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-20 19:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 7:00 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 9:18 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-20 23:07 ` Paul Mackerras
2007-08-21 2:18 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-21 7:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 10:07 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-21 10:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:15 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-21 11:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 8:17 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 9:11 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-21 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 9:48 ` Paul Mackerras
2007-08-21 10:38 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-21 11:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:58 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-21 10:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 10:43 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 11:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:24 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 11:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 11:58 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-21 12:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-21 12:57 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2007-08-21 11:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-22 7:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-22 7:59 ` Ingo Molnar
[not found] ` <200708141032.47235.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708140835240.30176@woody.linux-foundation.org>
2007-08-14 18:19 ` Christian Borntraeger
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=200708141037.48001.borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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®