mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Izumi,
	Taku/泉 拓" <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: about definition of iowait
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:01:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160607120125.GH30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5756AEFE.60300@cn.fujitsu.com>

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 07:24:46PM +0800, Cao jin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I noticed some problems about iowait entry of /proc/stat: it seems not
> accurate, and sometimes will decrease in SMP.
> 
> For UP, we have a simple definition about iowait, which is:
> The time that the processor is idle, during which there is a task waiting
> for I/O.
> 
> This definition seems don't fit well when step into SMP era, so I think
> maybe it can be extended like:
> For a given CPU, the I/O wait time is the time during which that CPU was
> idle, and there is at least one outstanding disk I/O operation requested by
> a task scheduled on that CPU.
> 
> But tasks can migrate among cpus, so this definition maybe not accurate.
> 
> I also saw some suggestions that it should be a global value, not per cpu,
> but don`t see clear definition, so anyone have suggestions about it?
> (personally guessing, maybe: there is task waiting for outstanding I/O while
> all cpus are idle? But I don't think it is good...)

It is possible to come up with definition for a single global number;
per-cpu iowait numbers are doomed.

But I don't see it matters one way or the other. Personally I would just
make the kernel return 0 and be done with it.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-07 12:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-07 11:24 Cao jin
2016-06-07 12:01 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-06-08  7:14   ` Cao jin
2016-06-27  6:06   ` Cao jin

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=20160607120125.GH30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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

Powered by JetHome