linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] Export ns irqtimes through /proc/stat -v1

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]

Message-ID: <1288105046.15336.343.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:57:26 +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>,
	Shaun Ruffell <sruffell@...ium.com>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Export ns irqtimes through /proc/stat -v1

On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 11:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 15:30 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> > +static void irqtime_account_process_tick(struct task_struct *p, int user_tick,
> > +                                               struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +       cputime_t one_jiffy_scaled = cputime_to_scaled(cputime_one_jiffy);
> > +       cputime64_t tmp = cputime_to_cputime64(cputime_one_jiffy);
> > +       struct cpu_usage_stat *cpustat = &kstat_this_cpu.cpustat;
> > +
> > +       if (irqtime_account_hi_update()) {
> > +               cpustat->irq = cputime64_add(cpustat->irq, tmp);
> > +       } else if (irqtime_account_si_update()) {
> > +               cpustat->softirq = cputime64_add(cpustat->softirq, tmp);
> > +       } else 
> 
> I'm still not sure about this else stmt, the above two conditions can
> basically 'eat' user/system ticks. What we need to show is that there is
> no bias towards either kind so the ratio is not affected -- can we make
> such an argument?

I think I can made a counter-argument: if either or both of these checks
are true we had system time in the last tick, hence there is a larger
chance this tick is a system tick.

Therefore it will not provide the same user/system ratio.

Hmm?

> >                if (user_tick) {
> > +               account_user_time(p, cputime_one_jiffy, one_jiffy_scaled);
> > +       } else if (p == rq->idle) {
> > +               account_idle_time(cputime_one_jiffy);
> > +       } else if (p->flags & PF_VCPU) { /* System time or guest time */
> > +               account_guest_time(p, cputime_one_jiffy, one_jiffy_scaled);
> > +       } else {
> > +               __account_system_time(p, cputime_one_jiffy, one_jiffy_scaled,
> > +                                       &cpustat->system);
> > +       }
> > +} 

--
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/