[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXRs5mXYq8OPH-WYqWPoD=35WccnHh7Bcm-YZMjW3ADcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:48:07 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Kernel-team@...com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] X86: Add a thread cpu time implementation to vDSO
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:22:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Bad news: this patch is incorrect, I think. Take a look at
>> update_rq_clock -- it does fancy things involving irq time and
>> paravirt steal time. So this patch could result in extremely
>> non-monotonic results.
>
> Yeah, I'm not sure how (and if) we could make all that work :/
I obviously can't comment on what Facebook needs, but if I were
rigging something up to profile my own code*, I'd want a count of
elapsed time, including user, system, and probably interrupt as well.
I would probably not want to count time during which I'm not
scheduled, and I would also probably not want to count steal time.
The latter makes any implementation kind of nasty.
The API presumably doesn't need to be any particular clock id for
clock_gettime, and it may not even need to be clock_gettime at all.
Is perf self-monitoring good enough for this? If not, can we make it
good enough?
* I do this today using CLOCK_MONOTONIC
--Andy
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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