Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754009AbaLAQsx (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:48:53 -0500 Received: from e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.112]:38572 "EHLO e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753388AbaLAQsv (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:48:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:48:42 +0100 From: Martin Schwidefsky To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: LKML , Tony Luck , Peter Zijlstra , Heiko Carstens , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Thomas Gleixner , Oleg Nesterov , Paul Mackerras , Wu Fengguang , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/30] cputime: Convert kcpustat to nsecs Message-ID: <20141201174842.648dfe06@mschwide> In-Reply-To: <20141201161031.GA27302@lerouge> References: <1417199040-21044-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1417199040-21044-8-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20141201151402.31a6cc9a@mschwide> <20141201161031.GA27302@lerouge> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14120116-0025-0000-0000-000002AC5B46 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:10:34 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Speaking about the degradation in s390: > > s390 is really a special case. And it would be a shame if we prevent from a > real core cleanup just for this special case especially as it's fairly possible > to keep a specific treatment for s390 in order not to impact its performances > and time precision. We could simply accumulate the cputime in per-cpu values: > > struct s390_cputime { > cputime_t user, sys, softirq, hardirq, steal; > } > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct s390_cputime, s390_cputime); > > Then on irq entry/exit, just add the accumulated time to the relevant buffer > and account for real (through any account_...time() functions) only on tick > and task switch. There the costly operations (unit conversion and call to > account_...._time() functions) are deferred to a rarer yet periodic enough > event. This is what s390 does already for user/system time and kernel > boundaries. > > This way we should even improve the situation compared to what we have > upstream. It's going to be faster because calling the accounting functions > can be costlier than simple per-cpu ops. And also we keep the cputime_t > granularity. For archs like s390 which have a granularity higher than nsecs, > we can have: > > u64 cputime_to_nsecs(cputime_t time, u64 *rem); > > And to avoid remainder losses, we can do that from the tick: > > delta_cputime = this_cpu_read(s390_cputime.hardirq); > delta_nsec = cputime_to_nsecs(delta_cputime, &rem); > account_system_time(delta_nsec, HARDIRQ_OFFSET); > this_cpu_write(s390_cputime.hardirq, rem); > > Although I doubt that remainders below one nsec lost each tick matter that much. > But if it does, it's fairly possible to handle like above. To make that work we would have to move some of the logic from account_system_time to the architecture code. The decision if a system time delta is guest time, irq time, softirq time or simply system time is currently done in kernel/sched/cputime.c. As the conversion + the accounting is delayed to a regular tick we would have to split the accounting code into decision functions which bucket a system time delta should go to and introduce new function to account to the different buckets. Instead of a single account_system_time we would have account_guest_time, account_system_time, account_system_time_irq and account_system_time_softirq. In principle not a bad idea, that would make the interrupt path for s390 faster as we would not have to call account_system_time, only the decision function which could be an inline function. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/