Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-22479-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <b0c67327-5131-4cde-a8bd-df69b1f300e5@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:15:18 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] io_uring: Statistics of the true utilization of sq
 threads.
Content-Language: en-US
To: Xiaobing Li <xiaobing.li@samsung.com>, asml.silence@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
 kun.dou@samsung.com, peiwei.li@samsung.com, joshi.k@samsung.com,
 kundan.kumar@samsung.com, wenwen.chen@samsung.com, ruyi.zhang@samsung.com
References: <c9505525-54d9-4610-a47a-5f8d2d3f8de6@gmail.com>
 <CGME20240110091327epcas5p493e0d77a122a067b6cd41ecbf92bd6eb@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
 <20240110090523.1612321-1-xiaobing.li@samsung.com>
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <20240110090523.1612321-1-xiaobing.li@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 1/10/24 2:05 AM, Xiaobing Li wrote:
> On 1/5/24 04:02 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 1/3/24 05:49, Xiaobing Li wrote:
>>> On 12/30/23 9:27 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Why it uses jiffies instead of some task run time?
>>>> Consequently, why it's fine to account irq time and other
>>>> preemption? (hint, it's not)
>>>>
>>>> Why it can't be done with userspace and/or bpf? Why
>>>> can't it be estimated by checking and tracking
>>>> IORING_SQ_NEED_WAKEUP in userspace?
>>>>
>>>> What's the use case in particular? Considering that
>>>> one of the previous revisions was uapi-less, something
>>>> is really fishy here. Again, it's a procfs file nobody
>>>> but a few would want to parse to use the feature.
>>>>
>>>> Why it just keeps aggregating stats for the whole
>>>> life time of the ring? If the workload changes,
>>>> that would either totally screw the stats or would make
>>>> it too inert to be useful. That's especially relevant
>>>> for long running (days) processes. There should be a
>>>> way to reset it so it starts counting anew.
>>>
>>> Hi, Jens and Pavel,
>>> I carefully read the questions you raised.
>>> First of all, as to why I use jiffies to statistics time, it
>>> is because I have done some performance tests and found that
>>> using jiffies has a relatively smaller loss of performance
>>> than using task run time. Of course, using task run time is
>>
>> How does taking a measure for task runtime looks like? I expect it to
>> be a simple read of a variable inside task_struct, maybe with READ_ONCE,
>> in which case the overhead shouldn't be realistically measurable. Does
>> it need locking?
> 
> The task runtime I am talking about is similar to this:
> start = get_system_time(current);
> do_io_part();
> sq->total_time += get_system_time(current) - start;

Not sure what get_system_time() is, don't see that anywhere.

> Currently, it is not possible to obtain the execution time of a piece of 
> code by a simple read of a variable inside task_struct. 
> Or do you have any good ideas?

I must be missing something, because it seems like all you need is to
read task->stime? You could possible even make do with just logging busy
loop time, as getrusage(RUSAGE_THREAD, &stat) from userspace would then
give you the total time.

stat.ru_stime would then be the total time, the thread ran, and
1 - (above_busy_stime / stat.ru_stime) would give you the time the
percentage of time the thread ran and did useful work (eg not busy
looping.

Hmm?

-- 
Jens Axboe