[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1372182534.7497.129.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:48:54 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To: Dave Chiluk <chiluk@...onical.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes.
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:46 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
> > respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
> > roughly 4-8%. Is this a bug, known behaviour, or consequence of the
> > process being io bound?
>
> All three I suppose.
P.S.
perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5 -F 250 (my tick freq)
56.65% netserver
43.35% pert
perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5
67.16% netserver
32.84% pert
If you sample a high freq signal (netperf TCP_RR) at low freq (tick),
then try to reproduce the original signal, (very familiar) distortion
results. Perf doesn't even care about softirq yada yada, so seems it's
a pure sample rate thing.
-Mike
--
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