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;
Message-ID: <b56f988176fca4f13c310b9dc866baf5408eeadd.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timers/nohz: Update nohz load even if tick already
 stopped
From:   Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 08 Nov 2019 02:13:44 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20191105124351.GN4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20191028150716.22890-1-frederic@kernel.org>
         <20191029100506.GJ4114@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <52d963553deda810113accd8d69b6dffdb37144f.camel@redhat.com>
         <20191030133130.GY4097@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <813ed21938aa47b15f35f8834ffd98ad4dd27771.camel@redhat.com>
         <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911042315390.17054@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
         <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911050042250.17054@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
         <7b782bc880a29eb7d37f2c2aff73c43e7f7d032f.camel@redhat.com>
         <20191105124351.GN4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Organization: Red Hat
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 13:43 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:30:58AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > As for the warning in sched_tick_remote(), it seems like a test for tim=
e
> > since the last tick on this cpu (remote or otherwise) would be better
> > than
> > relying on curr->se.exec_start, in order to detect things like this.
>=20
> I don't think we have a timestamp that is shared between the remote and
> local tick.=20

Why wouldn't rq_clock_task() work on the local tick?  It's what
->task_tick() itself uses.

> Also, there is a reason this warning uses the task time
> accounting, there used to be (as in, I can't find it in a hurry) code
> that could not deal with >u32 (~4s) clock updates.

Detecting a 3 second interval between ticks for a given cpu should assert i=
n
a superset of the situations the current check asserts in -- it just avoids
the false negative of exec_runtime getting updated by something other than
the tick.

-Scott