Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 11:17:54 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        maz@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        riel@surriel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] delayacct: Use sched_clock()
Message-ID: <YJQIopjVwzBjxg4n@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20210505105940.190490250@infradead.org>
 <20210505111525.001031466@infradead.org>
 <YJP2L1lUvUrur4pK@cmpxchg.org>
 <YJP6fWhwg95JZ1Kg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YJP6fWhwg95JZ1Kg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 04:17:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:59:11AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:59:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > @@ -42,10 +42,9 @@ void __delayacct_tsk_init(struct task_st
> > >   * Finish delay accounting for a statistic using its timestamps (@start),
> > >   * accumalator (@total) and @count
> > >   */
> > > -static void delayacct_end(raw_spinlock_t *lock, u64 *start, u64 *total,
> > > -			  u32 *count)
> > > +static void delayacct_end(raw_spinlock_t *lock, u64 *start, u64 *total, u32 *count)
> > >  {
> > > -	s64 ns = ktime_get_ns() - *start;
> > > +	s64 ns = local_clock() - *start;
> > 
> > I don't think this is safe. These time sections that have preemption
> > and migration enabled and so might span multiple CPUs. local_clock()
> > could end up behind *start, AFAICS.
> 
> Only if you have really crummy hardware, and in that case the drift is
> bounded by around 1 tick. Also, this function actually checks: ns > 0.

Oh, I didn't realize it was that close. I just went off the dramatic
warnings on cpu_clock() :-) But yeah, that seems plenty accurate for
this purpose.

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>