[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:01:02 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dario.faggioli@...rix.com, bevan@...co.net,
xen.list@...vel.fr, joao.m.martins@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: do not decrease steal time after
live migration on xen
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 02:42:01PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > > + u64 steal, steal_time;
> > > > + s64 steal_delta;
> > > > +
> > > > + steal_time =
> > > > paravirt_steal_clock(smp_processor_id());
> > > > + steal = steal_delta = steal_time - this_rq()-
> > > > >prev_steal_time;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlikely(steal_delta < 0)) {
> > > > + this_rq()->prev_steal_time =
> > > > steal_time;
> >
> > I don't think setting prev_steal_time to smaller value is right
> > thing to do.
> >
> > Beside, I don't think we need to check for overflow condition for
> > cputime variables (it will happen after 279 years :-). So instead
> > of introducing signed steal_delta variable I would just add
> > below check, which should be sufficient to fix the problem:
> >
> > if (unlikely(steal <= this_rq()->prev_steal_time))
> > return 0;
>
> How about you just fix up paravirt_steal_time() on migration and not
> muck with the users ?
Not just migration, either. CPU hotplug is another time to fix up
the steal time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists