[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130816163355.GA766@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:33:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock
On 08/16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:02:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Unless I missread this patch, this is still racy a bit.
> >
> > Suppose it is called on CPU_0 and cpu == 1. Suppose that
> > ts->idle_active == T and nr_iowait_cpu(cpu) == 1.
> >
> > So we return iowait_sleeptime + delta.
> >
> > Suppose that we call get_cpu_iowait_time_us() again. By this time
> > the task which incremented ->nr_iowait can be woken up on another
> > CPU, and it can do atomic_dec(rq->nr_iowait). So the next time
> > we return iowait_sleeptime, and this is not monotonic again.
> >
> > No?
>
> OTOH, io_schedule() does:
>
> atomic_inc(&rq->nr_iowait);
> schedule();
> atomic_dec(&rq->nr_iowait);
>
> How do we handle that when the task is migrated after it goes to sleep?
or even before it goes to sleep. This is what I meant.
> I don't either see that iowait tasks can't be migrated.
But probably this is fine? This is just the non-precise accounting.
But otoh, I agree. The whole idea about per-cpu nr_iowait looks a
bit strange.
Oleg.
--
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