[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1285844662.2144.9.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:04:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] si time accounting accounts bh_disable'd time to
si -v3
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 12:21 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra found a bug in the way softirq time is accounted in
> VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING on this thread.
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail//linux/kernel/1009.2/01366.html
>
> The problem is, softirq processing uses local_bh_disable internally. There
> is no way, later in the flow, to differentiate between whether softirq is
> being processed or is it just that bh has been disabled. So, a hardirq when bh
> is disabled results in time being wrongly accounted as softirq.
>
> Looking at the code a bit more, the problem exists in !VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
> as well. As account_system_time() in normal tick based accouting also uses
> softirq_count, which will be set even when not in softirq with bh disabled.
>
> Peter also suggested solution of using 2 * SOFTIRQ_OFFSET as irq count
> for local_bh_{disable,enable} and using just SOFTIRQ_OFFSET while softirq
> processing. The patch below does that and adds API in_serving_softirq() which
> returns whether we are currently processing softirq or not.
>
> Also changes one of the usages of softirq_count in net/sched/cls_cgroup.c
> to in_serving_softirq.
>
> Looks like many usages of in_softirq really want in_serving_softirq. Those
> changes can be made individually on a case by case basis.
>
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
One nit: in_serving_softirq() doesn't seem right as either:
- we're not accounting ksoftirq in it, or
- we're are and VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING is again broken ;-)
So only the softirq from irq tails wants to have SOFTIRQ_OFFSET set, the
ksoftirqd stuff can be tested for using PF_flags or something (ksoftirq
doesn't currently have a PF_SOFTIRQ flag, but -rt does and we could
bring that over).
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists