Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:44:01 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG nohz]: wrong user and system time accounting
Message-ID: <20170330134400.GD3626@lerouge>
References: <20170323165512.60945ac6@redhat.com>
 <CANRm+CxcgSP2-x+A822DmHLvFLzFmTptS6oYwYtwVdErTpiB=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1490636129.8850.76.camel@redhat.com>
 <20170328132406.7d23579c@redhat.com>
 <20170329131656.1d6cb743@redhat.com>
 <1490818125.28917.11.camel@redhat.com>
 <1490848051.4167.57.camel@gmx.de>
 <20170330125157.GB3626@lerouge>
 <1490878951.28917.16.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1490878951.28917.16.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1486
Lines: 40

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:02:31AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 14:51 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 06:27:31AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 16:08 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > 
> > > > A random offset, or better yet a somewhat randomized
> > > > tick length to make sure that simultaneous ticks are
> > > > fairly rare and the vtime sampling does not end up
> > > > "in phase" with the jiffies incrementing, could make
> > > > the accounting work right again.
> > > 
> > > That improves jitter, especially on big boxen.??I have an 8 socket
> > > box
> > > that thinks it's an extra large PC, there, collision avoidance
> > > matters
> > > hugely.??I couldn't reproduce bean counting woes, no idea if
> > > collision
> > > avoidance will help that.
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, where is the main contention between ticks? I
> > indeed
> > know some locks that can be taken on special cases, such as posix cpu
> > timers.
> > 
> > Also, why does it raise power consumption issues?
> 
> On a system without either nohz_full or nohz idle
> mode, skewed ticks result in CPU cores waking up
> at different times, and keeping an idle system
> consuming power for more time than it would if all
> the ticks happened simultaneously.

Ah fair point!

> 
> This is not a factor at all on systems that switch
> off the tick while idle, since the CPU will be busy
> anyway while the tick is enabled.

I see. Thanks!