[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANRm+CyYHLaihuk+ckQg42-Lo_3vFHaS8gU=GmXh8Rfq5mMpaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:59:07 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time
Hi Rik,
2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>:
> From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>
> Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks'
> jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq
> time.
>
> This is inaccurate if only a subset of the time was actually spent
> handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of the ticks during
> a period as irq time, when there was some irq and some softirq time.
>
> This can actually happen when irqtime_account_process_tick is called
> from account_idle_ticks, which can pass a larger number of ticks down
> all at once.
>
> Fix this by changing irqtime_account_hi_update, irqtime_account_si_update,
> and steal_account_process_ticks to work with cputime_t time units, and
> return the amount of time spent in each mode.
Do we need to minus st cputime from idle cputime in
account_idle_ticks() when noirqtime is true? I try to add this logic
w/ noirqtime and idle=poll boot parameter for a full dynticks guest,
however, there is no difference, where I miss?
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists