[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5543B64D.4040908@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 13:22:21 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, williams@...hat.com,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, fweisbec@...hat.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] context_tracking,x86: remove extraneous irq disable
& enable from context tracking on syscall entry
On 05/01/2015 01:12 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2015 12:45 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/01/2015 12:37 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also note that this bit in context_tracking_enter():
>>>>>
>>>>> if (state == CONTEXT_USER) {
>>>>> trace_user_enter(0);
>>>>> vtime_user_enter(current);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> is related to precise time measurement of user/kernel execution
>>>>> times, it's not needed by the scheduler at all, it's just exported
>>>>> to tooling. It's not fundamental to the scheduler.
>>>>
>>>> Any objections to the idea from the other thread to simply keep the
>>>> time accumulating in buffers in local_clock() units, and only update
>>>> the task vtime once a second or so?
>>>
>>> So I really think per syscall overhead is the wrong thing to do for
>>> anything that a common distro enables.
>>>
>>> I see very little use for such precise, high-freq measurements on
>>> normal systems - and abnormal systems could enable it dynamically just
>>> like they can enable syscall auditing.
>>>
>>> I.e. I don't mind the occasional crazy piece of code, as long as it
>>> does not hurt the innocent.
>>
>> Then how should/could we keep a rough idea of user / system / guest
>> time when running without a periodic timer tick?
>
> So I'd split the timer tick into two parts: just the constant-work
> sampling bit that doesn't do much, and the variable-work part which
> gets essentially shut off when the timeout is far into the future.
>
> Then we could do IRQ driven sampling without introducing variable
> amount jitter into hard-RT execution time.
>
> I.e. much of what we do today, except that we could skip variable work
> such as the scheduler tick or (unforced) RCU processing like the RCU
> softirq work.
Any ideas how we could avoid that sampling timer interrupt
latency stacking up when dealing with both guest and host?
--
All rights reversed
--
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