From: Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: arjan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] nohz: no update idle entry time on get_cpu_idle/iowait_time_us()
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:17:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151020231755.GC31289@jnakajim-build> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510112020520.6097@nanos>
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> > Currently the get_cpu_idle/iowait_time_us() updates the idle_entrytime.
> > When it's invoked from another CPU and the target CPU has been on idle
> > already, it will update the idle_entrytime to now, which is incorrect.
> >
> > However, the get_cpu_idle/iowait_time_us() is not guranteed to be called
> > on the target CPU. For example, the get_cpu_idle_time_us() seems is
> > invoked remotely on drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c through
> > get_cpu_idle_time().
> >
> > There is a check that the update happens only if a valid last_update_time
> > parameter passed. IMHO, this is more a hack because there is no guarantee
> > that it's invoked on the target CPU when last_update_time is valid.
>
> Looking at the call sites, this last_update_time parameter is
> silly. Why is the calling code not taking the timestamp? There is
> hardly a requirement that this needs to be the same timestamp as the
> one which is used to calculate idle time. That cpufreq calculations
> are speculative anyway.
>
> So we better get rid of that parameter completely.
Sure, will change the patch accordingly.
>
> > In fact, we don't need update the idle stats from
> > get_cpu_idle/iowait_time_us(). Now the policy is, we record the
> > entrytime when tick_nohz_start_idle() and update the stats
> > when tick_nohz_stop_idle(). We calculate the stats on other situations.
> >
> > Please notice:
> > 1) There is a bug currently that the tick_nohz_stop_idle() calls the
> > update_ts_time_stats() and update the idle_entrytime, which is sure
> > to be wrong. Removing the idle_entrytime update resolves the bug also.
>
> Care to explain the actual bug and what wreckage it causes? If it's a
> real bug then removing "ts->idle_entrytime = now" needs to be a
> separate patch. AFAICT, it's a cosmetic issue.
Thanks for review and sorry for slow response.
Yes, it's an exaggeration to call it a bug. I just thought that updating the
idle_entrytime when exiting the idle state should be something wrong. But
since the idle_entrytime is not used meaningful, it has no impact.
>
> > 2) There is a small widows in tick_nohz_stop_idle() between
> > update_ts_time_stats() and clear ts->idle_active, that
> > get_cpu_idle/iowait_time_us(), when invoked remotely, may double
> > count last idle period. This window exists w/o this change and this
> > change does not fix it.
>
> Calling any of those functions from a remote cpu is broken to begin
> with, especially on 32bit machines. And that does not change with your
> patch at all.
Yes, as stated, this change does not fix it.
Arjan also said that get_cpu_idle/iowait_time_us() should not be called from
remote CPUs, but as stated, drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c seems trying
to invoke them remotely. I have no idea of the impact, Rafael or Viresh, can
you give me some hints?
>
> What we really need here is protecting the idle stats fields with a
> raw_spinlock.
If no calling from remote CPU, then we don't need the spinlock protection,
right?
Thanks
--jyh
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-20 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-29 1:01 Yunhong Jiang
2015-10-11 18:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-10-20 23:17 ` Yunhong Jiang [this message]
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=20151020231755.GC31289@jnakajim-build \
--to=yunhong.jiang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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®