Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 10:32:30 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc:     frederic@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, pauld@redhat.com,
        neelx@redhat.com, oleksandr@natalenko.name,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] tick/sched: Ensure quiet_vmstat() is called when
 the idle tick was stopped too
Message-ID: <20220504093230.xmksdyagcpgs7sjt@ava.usersys.com>
References: <20220422193647.3808657-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <YmrYfSSepamn5fVc@fuller.cnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YmrYfSSepamn5fVc@fuller.cnet>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 2022-04-28 15:10 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> So you are syncing the vmstats on every system call return:

Hi Marcelo,

Sorry about the delay!

No - indeed, that would be too expensive. If I understand correctly,
Peter Zijlstra's feedback was in response to a previous suggestion made:

	"Could we *always* fold the vmstat counters when entering
	 idle mode? ..."

I think an exception should be made for the adaptive-tick mode/or a
nohz_full CPU case when the scheduling-clock tick is stopped. Also, I feel
correctness is key, as previously indicated since a significant divergence
can impact memory reclaim code.

> Have you measured performance of any system call heavy application
> with this change?

Unfortunately not. That being said, the aforementioned test and work will
only take place under a nohz_full CPU and if the tick is stopped.
So this should be somewhat limited, no?

> Then the comment on why its so slow:
> 
> "This loop is quite heavy. Maybe reducing the data necessary to be read
> to a couple of cachelines would improve it considerably."
> 
> The comment:
> 
> "Is there anything that prevents a nohz full CPU from running an
> application with short and frequent idling?"
> 
> Is confusing and can be ignored.

Understood.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin