From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
ohaugan@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched: fix incorrect wait time and wait count statistics
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:57:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151106135749.GT17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1446007613-6922-1-git-send-email-joonwoop@codeaurora.org>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> @@ -1272,6 +1272,15 @@ void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int new_cpu)
> WARN_ON_ONCE(p->state != TASK_RUNNING && p->state != TASK_WAKING &&
> !p->on_rq);
>
> + /*
> + * Migrating fair class task must have p->on_rq = TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING,
> + * because schedstat_wait_{start,end} rebase migrating task's wait_start
> + * time relying on p->on_rq.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(p->state == TASK_RUNNING &&
> + p->sched_class == &fair_sched_class &&
> + (p->on_rq && !task_on_rq_migrating(p)));
> +
Why do we have to test p->on_rq? Would not ->state == RUNNING imply
that?
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -737,41 +737,69 @@ static void update_curr_fair(struct rq *rq)
> update_curr(cfs_rq_of(&rq->curr->se));
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> static inline void
> update_stats_wait_start(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> {
> + u64 wait_start = rq_clock(rq_of(cfs_rq));
>
> + if (entity_is_task(se) && task_on_rq_migrating(task_of(se)) &&
> + likely(wait_start > se->statistics.wait_start))
> + wait_start -= se->statistics.wait_start;
> +
> + schedstat_set(se->statistics.wait_start, wait_start);
> }
>
> static void
> update_stats_wait_end(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> {
Since this is now all under CONFIG_SCHEDSTAT, would it not make sense
to do something like:
u64 now = rq_clock(rq_of(cfs_rq));
to avoid the endless calling of that function?
Also, for that very same reason; would it not make sense to drop the
schedstat_set() usage below, that would greatly enhance readability.
> + if (entity_is_task(se) && task_on_rq_migrating(task_of(se))) {
> + /*
> + * Preserve migrating task's wait time so wait_start time stamp
> + * can be adjusted to accumulate wait time prior to migration.
> + */
> + schedstat_set(se->statistics.wait_start,
> + rq_clock(rq_of(cfs_rq)) -
> + se->statistics.wait_start);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> schedstat_set(se->statistics.wait_max, max(se->statistics.wait_max,
> rq_clock(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->statistics.wait_start));
> schedstat_set(se->statistics.wait_count, se->statistics.wait_count + 1);
> schedstat_set(se->statistics.wait_sum, se->statistics.wait_sum +
> rq_clock(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->statistics.wait_start);
> +
> if (entity_is_task(se)) {
> trace_sched_stat_wait(task_of(se),
> rq_clock(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->statistics.wait_start);
> }
Is there no means of collapsing the two 'entity_is_task()' branches?
> schedstat_set(se->statistics.wait_start, 0);
> }
> +#else
> +static inline void
> +update_stats_wait_start(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline void
> +update_stats_wait_end(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-06 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-25 5:23 [PATCH] " Joonwoo Park
2015-10-25 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-25 10:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-27 1:44 ` Joonwoo Park
2015-10-27 12:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-28 2:40 ` Joonwoo Park
2015-10-28 4:46 ` [PATCH v4] " Joonwoo Park
2015-11-06 13:57 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-11-07 2:41 ` Joonwoo Park
2015-11-09 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-13 3:38 ` [PATCH v5] " Joonwoo Park
2015-11-23 16:20 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/core: Fix " tip-bot for Joonwoo Park
2015-10-27 19:17 ` [PATCH v3] sched: fix " Joonwoo Park
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=20151106135749.GT17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=joonwoop@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ohaugan@codeaurora.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®