Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: Ensure correct utime and stime proportion
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20180622071542.61569-1-xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <b9363fa9-826f-611f-3ab3-27e50c03422a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180626154908.GE2458@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e1b69cf9-a3a7-ea67-7c0e-d67ac81f29f1@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180705104632.GE2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <bd275aff-61dd-557f-5b91-da4ce82f9501@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180705134214.GF2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   xunlei <xunlei.pang@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <da032f2b-61e0-bd12-f0ec-0ef21b87d3d7@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 21:58:50 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180705134214.GF2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/5/18 9:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
>>>> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0. 
>>>
>>>> For a long time, the process runs mainly in userspace with
>>>> run-sleep patterns, and because two different clocks, it
>>>> is possible to have the following condition:
>>>>   rtime_0 < utime_0 (as with little stime_0)
>>>
>>> I don't follow... what?
>>>
>>> Why are you, and why do you think it makes sense to, compare rtime_0
>>> against utime_0 ?
>>>
>>> The [us]time_0 are, per your earlier definition, ticks. They're not an
>>> actual measure of time. Do not compare the two, that makes no bloody
>>> sense.
>>>
>>
>> [us]time_0 is task_struct:utime{stime}, I cited directly from
>> cputime_adjust(), both in nanoseconds. I assumed "rtime_0 < utime_0"
>> here to simple the following proof to help explain the problem we met.
> 
> In the !VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING case they (task_struct::[us]time) are not
> actual durations. Yes, the happen to be accounted in multiples of
> TICK_NSEC and thereby happen to carry a [ns] unit, but they are not
> durations, they are samples.
> 
> (we just happen to store them in a [ns] unit because for
> VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING they are in fact durations)
> 
> If 'rtime < utime' is not a valid assumption to build a problem on for
> !VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING.
> 

It is rtime < utime + stime, that is the imprecise tick-based run time
may be larger than precise sum_exec_runtime scheduler-based run time, it
can happen with some frequent run-sleep patterns.

Because stime is usually very small, so it is possible to have rtime <
utime.

> 
> So please try again, so far you're not making any sense.
> 

I also had a reproducer to verify this patch, can attach it tomorrow.