mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Andrew Fox <afox@redhat.com>,
	Stephen Johnston <sjohnsto@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:52:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190722105240.GA27219@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190719110349.GG3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 01:03:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > shows the problem even when sum_exec_runtime is not that big: 300000 secs.
> > 
> > The new implementation of scale_stime() does the additional div64_u64_rem()
> > in a loop but see the comment, as long it is used by cputime_adjust() this
> > can happen only once.
> 
> That only shows something after long long staring :/ There's no words on
> what the output actually means or what would've been expected.
> 
> Also, your example is incomplete; the below is a test for scale_stime();
> from this we can see that the division results in too large a number,
> but, important for our use-case in cputime_adjust(), it is a step
> function (due to loss in precision) and for every plateau we shift
> runtime into the wrong bucket.
> 
> Your proposed function works; but is atrocious, esp. on 32bit. That
> said, before we 'fixed' it, it had similar horrible divisions in, see
> commit 55eaa7c1f511 ("sched: Avoid cputime scaling overflow").
> 
> Included below is also an x86_64 implementation in 2 instructions.
> 
> I'm still trying see if there's anything saner we can do...

I was always proponent of removing scaling and export raw values
and sum_exec_runtime. But that has obvious drawback, reintroduce
'top hiding' issue.

But maybe we can export raw values in separate file i.e.
/proc/[pid]/raw_cpu_times ? So applications that require more precise
cputime values for very long-living processes can use this file.

Stanislaw

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-07-22 10:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-18 13:18 Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-18 13:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-18 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-19 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-19 13:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-19 14:37     ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-22 19:56       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-23 14:00         ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-23 14:29           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-19 14:03   ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-22 19:45     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 10:52   ` Stanislaw Gruszka [this message]
2019-07-22 20:00     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-23  9:37       ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2020-01-22 16:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-23 13:05   ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-24 15:42   ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-27 12:28 ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-15 17:24   ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-19 17:25   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 18:33     ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-19 18:42       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 19:11       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 19:51         ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-20 15:24     ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-20 15:36       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-20 20:10         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-21 13:26           ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-06-16 12:21     ` [tip: sched/core] sched/cputime: Improve cputime_adjust() tip-bot2 for Oleg Nesterov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-07-18 13:15 [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise Oleg Nesterov

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=20190722105240.GA27219@redhat.com \
    --to=sgruszka@redhat.com \
    --cc=afox@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sjohnsto@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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

Powered by JetHome