Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:01:09 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] posix-cpu-timers: Migrate to use new tick
 dependency mask model
Message-ID: <20150803180108.GD26022@lerouge>
References: <1437669735-8786-9-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <55B26E74.5040803@ezchip.com>
 <20150729132343.GC11554@lerouge>
 <55B90C40.5090000@ezchip.com>
 <20150730004444.GA14744@lerouge>
 <55BA7C6A.1050602@ezchip.com>
 <20150730194519.GA24607@lerouge>
 <55BA8096.7030601@ezchip.com>
 <20150731144954.GB27875@lerouge>
 <55BF8FCB.6060409@ezchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55BF8FCB.6060409@ezchip.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2823
Lines: 50

On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:59:07AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 10:49 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >Instead of doing a per signal dependency, I'm going to use a per task
> >one. Which means that if a per-process timer is enqueued, every thread
> >of that process will have the tick dependency. But if the timer is
> >enqueued to a single thread, only the thread is concerned.
> >
> >We'll see if offloading becomes really needed. It's not quite free because
> >the housekeepers will have to poll on all nohz CPUs at a Hz frequency.
> 
> Seems reasonable for now!
> 
> Why would we need the Hz frequency polling, though?  I would
> think it should be possible to just arrange it such that the timer
> for posix cpu timers would just always be placed either on the core
> that requested it, or if that core is nohz_full, on a housekeeping
> core.  Then it would eventually fire from the housekeeping core,
> and the logic could be such that (for a process-wide timer) it
> would preferentially interrupt threads from that process that
> were running on the housekeeping cores.  No polling.

But you need to periodically poll on timer expiration from a housekeeper.
It's not only about firing the timer, it's about elapsing it against the
target cputime.

Since there is no tick on a nohz full CPU to account the time spent by
the task, you must do that elsewhere. And if you don't poll in a sufficient
frequency, the time accounted is less precise (a quick round-trip to kernel space
can be missed if the polling frequency is too low). Or you can combine it
with the VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN that we are using currently which records the
time spent in user and kernel space using hooks. Still you must check periodically
that the timer hasn't expired at a frequency that doesn't go further the
expiration time. Easy in the case of a timer attached to a single task but what
about a timer attached to a process? You must poll at least at expiration/nr_threads,
so you must handle thread creation as well.

Offlining posix timers sounds like a big headache if we don't poll at Hz time.

That said Rick has posted patches that offline cputime accounting. I'm not yet sure
this patchset is a good idea but offlining posix timers can be done on top of that.

Another thing: now I recall why I turned posix timers to a global tick dependency.
In case of a per task/process dependency we still need the context switch hook because
if we enqueue a timer to a sleeping task, the tick must be restarted when the task wakes
up. And that requires a check on context switch.
--
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/