Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:46:29 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Geoff Levand <geoff@infradead.org>,
        Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>,
        Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@gmail.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>,
        Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@gmail.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        "Luck,Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] nohz: Basic cputime accounting for adaptive
 tickless
Message-ID: <20120618124629.77d2c178@de.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120615173713.GA23238@somewhere.redhat.com>
References: <1339604397-8758-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
	<1339664829.2559.14.camel@twins>
	<20120614111241.GA16848@somewhere>
	<20120614111638.GA16676@gmail.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1206141321010.3086@ionos>
	<20120614112241.GB16848@somewhere>
	<20120614144815.1401af49@de.ibm.com>
	<20120614134238.GD16848@somewhere>
	<20120614171800.72f02152@de.ibm.com>
	<20120615173713.GA23238@somewhere.redhat.com>
Organization: IBM Corporation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2897
Lines: 76

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:37:18 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:42:44 +0200
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 02:48:15PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:22:45 +0200
> > > > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 01:21:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > You're right, I should have looked into CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING sooner
> > > > > > > > and see if I can reuse it.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'll try something with that.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Maybe sanitize all the variants under a single set of 
> > > > > > > wrappers/callbacks?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, please!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure, I'm working in it.
> > > >  
> > > > Please keep me in the loop, I want to avoid that things break on s390. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Do you have any idea why s390 counts idle time from asm deep in the idle code
> > > rather than just hooking in account_system_vtime() like ppc or ia64?
> >  
> > Well what is idle time? For s390 it is the difference in the TOD clock between
> > the instruction that loaded the enabled-wait-PSW and the first instruction on
> > the interrupt handler. To get the best precision you need to get the TOD time
> > stamps as close to these two instructions as possible. For s390 it is the
> > following sequence:
> > 
> >         STCK    __IDLE_ENTER(%r2)	# idle enter time stamp
> >         ltr     %r5,%r5
> >         stpt    __VQ_IDLE_ENTER(%r3)
> >         jz      psw_idle_lpsw
> >         spt     0(%r1)
> > psw_idle_lpsw:
> >         lpswe   __SF_EMPTY(%r15)
> > 
> > <<< sleeping >>>
> > 
> > int_handler:
> >         STCK    __LC_INT_CLOCK		# idle exit time stamp
> > 
> > There are at maximum 5 instructions between the STCK for the idle
> > enter time stamp and the lpswe that puts the cpu to sleep.
> 
> I see. So s390 accounts only the time spent in low power mode whereas
> ppc/ia64 accounts everything that happens in the idle task.
> 
> I don't know which one has chosen the right semantics but this complicates
> any possible unification.
> 
> BTW, aren't you accounting the idle time as system time as well with
> account_sys_vtime()?

No, the accout_sys_vtime call is there to account for the time spent going
in and out if idle.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/