linux-kernel - Re: Stolen and degraded time and schedulers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:09:08 -0700
From:	Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	dwalker@...sta.com, cpufreq@...ts.linux.org.uk,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, paulus@...ibm.com,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Subject: Re: Stolen and degraded time and schedulers

On 03/14/2007 02:18 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Dan Hecht wrote:
>> On 03/14/2007 01:31 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> Dan Hecht wrote:
>>>> Sounds good.  I don't see this in your patchset you sent yesterday
>>>> though; did you add it after sending out those patches?
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>   if so, could you forward the new patch?  does it explicitly prevent
>>>> stolen time from getting accounted as  user/system time or does it
>>>> just rely on NO_HZ mode sort of happening to work that way (since the
>>>> one shot timer is skipped ahead for missed ticks)?
>>> Hm, not sure.  It doesn't care how often it gets called; it just
>>> accumulates results up to that point, but I'm not sure if the time would
>>> get double accounted.  Perhaps it doesn't matter when using
>>> xen_sched_clock().
>>>
>> I think you might be double counting time in some cases. 
>> sched_clock() isn't really relevant to stolen time accounting (i.e.
>> cpustat->steal).
>>
>> I think what you want is to make sure that the sum of the cputime
>> passed to all of:
>>
>> account_user_time
>> account_system_time
>> account_steal_time
>>
>> adds up to the total amount of time that has passed.  I think it is
>> sort of working for you (i.e. doesn't always double count stolen
>> ticks) since in NO_HZ mode, update_process_time (which calls
>> account_user_time & account_system_time) happens to be skipped during
>> periods of stolen time due to the hrtimer_forward()'ing of the one
>> shot expiry. 
> 
> OK, this will need a closer look.
> 
> BTW, what are the properties of the vmi read_available_cycles()?  Is
> that a per-cpu timer?  If its used as the timebase for sched_clock, how
> does recalc_task_prio not get a -ve sleep time?
> 

Available time is defined to be (real_time - stolen_time).  i.e. time in 
which the vcpu is either running or not ready to run [because it is 
halted, and nothing is pending]).

So, yes, it is per-vcpu.  But, the sched_clock() samples are rebased 
when processes are migrated between runqueues; search sched.c for 
most_recent_timestamp.  It's not perfect since most_recent_timestamp 
between cpu0 and cpu1 do not correspond to the exact same instant, but 
does prevent negative sleep time and is fairly close.

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