From: "hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com" <hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"'mgorman@suse.de'" <mgorman@suse.de>,
"'mingo@kernel.org'" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"'tglx@linutronix.de'" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"'juri.lelli@redhat.com'" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"'vincent.guittot@linaro.org'" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: "'fweisbec@gmail.com'" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"'dietmar.eggemann@arm.com'" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"'rostedt@goodmis.org'" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"'bsegall@google.com'" <bsegall@google.com>,
"'bristot@redhat.com'" <bristot@redhat.com>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Utime and stime are less when getrusage (RUSAGE_THREAD) is executed on a tickless CPU.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:49:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <OSBPR01MB21836F532CA384C7378C1284EB099@OSBPR01MB2183.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210616125452.GE801071@lothringen>
Hi Frederic, Peter, and Mel
> If necessary I guess we can do something like the below, which
> would only add the overhead where it's required:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/cputime.h b/include/linux/sched/cputime.h
> index 6c9f19a33865..ce3c58286062 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/cputime.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/cputime.h
> @@ -18,15 +18,16 @@
> #endif /* CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_NATIVE */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN
> -extern void task_cputime(struct task_struct *t,
> +extern bool task_cputime(struct task_struct *t,
> u64 *utime, u64 *stime);
> extern u64 task_gtime(struct task_struct *t);
> #else
> -static inline void task_cputime(struct task_struct *t,
> +static inline bool task_cputime(struct task_struct *t,
> u64 *utime, u64 *stime)
> {
> *utime = t->utime;
> *stime = t->stime;
> + return false;
> }
>
> static inline u64 task_gtime(struct task_struct *t)
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> index 872e481d5098..9392aea1804e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> @@ -615,7 +615,8 @@ void task_cputime_adjusted(struct task_struct *p, u64 *ut, u64 *st)
> .sum_exec_runtime = p->se.sum_exec_runtime,
> };
>
> - task_cputime(p, &cputime.utime, &cputime.stime);
> + if (task_cputime(p, &cputime.utime, &cputime.stime))
> + cputime.sum_exec_runtime = task_sched_runtime(p);
> cputime_adjust(&cputime, &p->prev_cputime, ut, st);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(task_cputime_adjusted);
> @@ -828,19 +829,21 @@ u64 task_gtime(struct task_struct *t)
> * add up the pending nohz execution time since the last
> * cputime snapshot.
> */
> -void task_cputime(struct task_struct *t, u64 *utime, u64 *stime)
> +bool task_cputime(struct task_struct *t, u64 *utime, u64 *stime)
> {
> struct vtime *vtime = &t->vtime;
> unsigned int seq;
> u64 delta;
> + int ret;
>
> if (!vtime_accounting_enabled()) {
> *utime = t->utime;
> *stime = t->stime;
> - return;
> + return false;
> }
>
> do {
> + ret = false;
> seq = read_seqcount_begin(&vtime->seqcount);
>
> *utime = t->utime;
> @@ -850,6 +853,7 @@ void task_cputime(struct task_struct *t, u64 *utime, u64 *stime)
> if (vtime->state < VTIME_SYS)
> continue;
>
> + ret = true;
> delta = vtime_delta(vtime);
>
> /*
> @@ -861,6 +865,8 @@ void task_cputime(struct task_struct *t, u64 *utime, u64 *stime)
> else
> *utime += vtime->utime + delta;
> } while (read_seqcount_retry(&vtime->seqcount, seq));
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int vtime_state_fetch(struct vtime *vtime, int cpu)
I tested this and confirmed that it gives accurate values.
Also, task_sched_runtime () is done only on nohz_full CPU, so I think
it's a better idea than before.
I hope you will incorporate this fix into your mainline.
Thanks.
Hitomi Hasegawa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-22 6:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-12 3:28 hasegawa-hitomi
2021-05-18 7:59 ` hasegawa-hitomi
2021-05-18 8:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-19 6:30 ` hasegawa-hitomi
2021-05-19 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-19 9:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-21 6:40 ` hasegawa-hitomi
2021-05-21 8:41 ` Mel Gorman
2021-06-16 2:27 ` hasegawa-hitomi
2021-06-16 12:31 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 12:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-22 6:49 ` hasegawa-hitomi [this message]
2021-06-28 2:36 ` hasegawa-hitomi
2021-06-28 14:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-21 8:24 ` hasegawa-hitomi
2021-08-31 4:18 ` hasegawa-hitomi
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=OSBPR01MB21836F532CA384C7378C1284EB099@OSBPR01MB2183.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com \
--to=hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@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®