[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1408095453.5567.6.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:37:33 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sanjay Rao <srao@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with
seqlock
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 08:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 07:19:31AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > For the N threads doing this on N cores case, seems rq->lock hammering
> > will still be a source of major box wide pain. Is there any correctness
> > reason to add up unaccounted ->on_cpu beans, or is that just value
> > added?
>
> That delta can be arbitrarily large with nohz_full. And without
> nohz_full the error is nr_cpus*TICK_NSEC, which I bet is larger than the
> reported clock resolution.
>
> Having a non-constant error bound is annoying for you never quite know
> what to expect.
Ah, yeah, that could get rather large.
> Also; why do we care about PROCESS_CPUTIME? People should really not use
> it. What are the 'valid' usecases you guys care about?
I don't care much, said "don't do that" before I saw a similar big box
problem had popped up with times().
-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