[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311131635580.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Matthew Whitehead <tedheadster@...il.com>, john.stultz@...aro.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mwhitehe@...hat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: nohz problem with idle time on old hardware
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I'm not saying that we are actually getting into nohz, but something
> > with the nohz code is messing with cpu accounting.
>
> The trace does indeed show that a tick is happening, as the config has
> HZ=250 (4ms) and we see a tick happen every 4ms. But for some reason,
> we don't update the the idle time correctly when nohz is enabled.
>
> When I say nohz is enabled, I mean that we don't have nohz=off in the
> command line. There seems to be some difference between having nohz=off
> and having nohz disabled at runtime.
Right that affects tick_nohz_enabled
Two files use this variable:
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
kernel/time/tick-sched.c
The only accounting related stuff is in tick-sched.c:
get_cpu_idle_time_us() and get_cpu_iowait_time_us()
Both functions bail out if (!tick_nohz_enabled).
The users of get_cpu_idle_time_us() are cpufreq and fs/proc/stat.c!
Now the simplest fix is to let those functions check whether we
actually switched into NOHZ mode. Should work for the RCU tree stuff
as well.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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