From: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
Cc: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Josh Snyder <joshs@netflix.com>,
Kayra Cizmeci <kayracizmeci@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Account blkio delay independently of delayed dequeue
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 10:59:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261015025912.1541134-1-zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ce12bff-9532-4b27-98f2-a807bbccfaf7@arm.com>
On 10/14/26 17:12, Christian Loehle wrote:
> Start accounting in try_to_block_task(), when the current task commits
> to blocking, before delayed dequeue or proxy execution can retain it on
> the runqueue. End accounting when clearing is_blocked, including queued
> wakeups and the proxy execution paths that let the current task continue.
This is the right place, and it subsumes my patch. Please drop mine
rather than queue both.
try_to_block_task() has only one caller, __schedule(), which passes prev,
and prev is rq->curr there. So @p is current, the argument-less
delayacct_blkio_start() is correct once the call lives there, and the
signature change I proposed is unnecessary.
The two also conflict: my patch rewrites the sched.h line yours deletes,
so applying mine first makes your sched.h hunk fail, and the new call in
try_to_block_task() would not compile against the changed prototype.
Reviewed-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com>
One question. rq->nr_iowait stays in __block_task(), so the two now
measure different intervals: blkio delay from the commit to block,
nr_iowait from the actual dequeue. A task woken while still delayed is
accounted a blkio delay but was never counted in nr_iowait, so
procs_blocked in /proc/stat and the iowait time derived from
nr_iowait_cpu() still lose that window. The counter stays balanced,
because such a wakeup returns through ttwu_runnable() and never reaches
the atomic_dec() in ttwu_do_activate(), so this is not a leak. Is leaving
nr_iowait behind deliberate, or a follow-up?
Thanks,
Zhan Xusheng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-15 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-14 8:17 [PATCH] delayacct: Account blkio start on the correct task Zhan Xusheng
2026-10-14 15:20 ` Christian Loehle
2026-10-14 16:12 ` [PATCH] sched: Account blkio delay independently of delayed dequeue Christian Loehle
2026-10-14 16:55 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-15 2:59 ` Zhan Xusheng [this message]
2026-10-15 10:40 ` Christian Loehle
2026-10-15 11:37 ` [PATCHv2] sched: Account I/O waits " Christian Loehle
2026-10-15 12:02 ` Zhan Xusheng
2026-10-15 12:16 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-11-06 9:50 ` [tip: sched/urgent] sched/core: " tip-bot2 for Christian Loehle
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=20261015025912.1541134-1-zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com \
--to=zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joshs@netflix.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kayracizmeci@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com \
/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®