linux-kernel - Re: [RFC GIT PULL] nohz: Basic cputime accounting for adaptive tickless

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120618124629.77d2c178@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:46:29 +0200
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"Luck,Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] nohz: Basic cputime accounting for adaptive
 tickless

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:37:18 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.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@...il.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@...il.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@...il.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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/