Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-81802-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:28:24 +0100
From: Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, 
	mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.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, vschneid@redhat.com, 
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: introduce CPUTIME_FORCEIDLE_TASK
Message-ID: <pb7jf52x2qpofgttzz3fphkeiuxuamjbjqb64paw7dvvtv2sxd@mgcol2syra6z>
References: <20240219084134.10673-1-CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cwh5t3gx4dedreqm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240219084134.10673-1-CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>


--cwh5t3gx4dedreqm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello.

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 04:41:34PM +0800, Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> As core sched uses rq_clock() as clock source to account forceidle
> time, irq time will be accounted into forceidle time. However, in
> some scenarios, forceidle sum will be much larger than exec runtime,
> e.g., we observed that forceidle time of task calling futex_wake()
> is 50% larger than exec runtime, which is confusing.

And those 50% turned out to be all attributed to irq time (that's
suggested by your diagram)?

(Could you argue about that time with data from /proc/stat alone?)

> Interfaces:
>  - task level: /proc/$pid/sched, row core_forceidle_task_sum.
>  - cgroup level: /sys/fs/cgroup/$cg/cpu.stat, row
>      core_sched.force_idle_task_usec.

Hm, when you touch this, could you please also add a section into
Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst about these entries?

(Alternatively, explain in the commit message why those aren't supposed
to be documented.
Alternative altenratively, would mere documenting of
core_sched.force_idle_usec help to prevent the confusion that you called
out above?)

Also, I wonder if the rstat counting code shouldn't be hidden with
CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG too? (IIUC, that's the same one required to see
analogous stats in /proc/$pid/sched.)

Regards,
Michal

--cwh5t3gx4dedreqm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQQpEWyjXuwGT2dDBqAGvrMr/1gcjgUCZdyuFgAKCRAGvrMr/1gc
jlQ2AP9lHZzRmJGKHC/PArhq58TYH4bO31Cw8QJyLzpMB6/oOAEA7GubxdNMgkf8
rKxYVNUeG+tzvQedlpfiWwD+Ql7RTAA=
=aTWv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--cwh5t3gx4dedreqm--