Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933711AbaLKDeV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 22:34:21 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:50876 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933529AbaLKDeU (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 22:34:20 -0500 Message-ID: <1418268856.5263.46.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: change where we report sched stats From: Mike Galbraith To: Josef Bacik Cc: bmaurer@fb.com, rkroll@fb.com, kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 04:34:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5488BFC5.3080001@fb.com> References: <1418149315-30173-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> <1418192604.5312.28.camel@marge.simpson.net> <5488BFC5.3080001@fb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 16:48 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > On 12/10/2014 01:23 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 13:21 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > >> This patch moves stat stuff to after the schedule, right as we are waking up, > > > > But sleep/block ends when the task is awakened/enqueued, not when it > > gets the CPU. You're adding scheduling latency, breaking accounting. > > > > Yes I'm aware of that. I don't care if the delay time is slightly > higher than normal, I care about knowing exactly why we were sleeping to > begin with. I suppose I could leave the accounting part where it is and > then just fire the tracepoint when it's put on the CPU so we get the > best of both worlds, but honestly I don't feel like adding the extra > scheduling latency into the accounting is that big of a deal. Thanks, I think sleep/iowait should remain what they are, sleep/iowait end at wakeup. I don't think waker trace is useless either for that matter. Who/when ends a sleep period is just as much a part of the picture as what triggered that sleep. Waker scheduling latency, thumb twiddling etc. extend sleep. Shrug, maintainer call. I don't recall ever having any difficulty determining why a task went to sleep, so don't get it. -Mike -- 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/