[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170813194421.GB1438922@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:44:21 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com,
luto@...capital.net, efault@....de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
guro@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cgroup: Implement cgroup2 basic CPU usage accounting
Hello, Waiman.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:19:07PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > * CPU usage stats are collected and shown in "cgroup.stat" with "cpu."
> > prefix. Total usage is collected from scheduling events. User/sys
> > breakdown is sourced from tick sampling and adjusted to the usage
> > using cputime_adjuts().
>
> Typo: cputime_adjust()
Oops, will fix.
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(cgroup_stat_mutex);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(raw_spinlock_t, cgroup_cpu_stat_lock);
>
> If the hierarchy is large enough and the stat data hasn't been read
> recently, it may take a while to accumulate all the stat data even for
> one cpu in cgroup_stat_flush_locked(). So I think it will make more
> sense to use regular spinlock_t instead of raw_spinlock_t.
They need to be raw spinlocks because the accounting side may grab
them while scheduling. If the accumulating latency becomes
problematic, we can test for need_resched and spin_needbreak and break
out as necessary. The iteration logic is built to allow that and an
earlier revision actually did that but I wasn't sure whether it's
actually necessary and removed it for simplicity.
If the latency ever becomes a problem, resurrecting that isn't
difficult at all.
> > +static struct cgroup *cgroup_cpu_stat_next_updated(struct cgroup *pos,
> > + struct cgroup *root, int cpu)
>
> This function is trying to unwind one cgrp from the updated_children and
> updated_next linkage. It is somewhat like the opposite of
> cgroup_cpu_stat_updated(). I just feel like its name isn't intuitive
> enough to convey what it is doing. Maybe use name like
> cgroup_cpu_stat_unlink_one() to match cgroup_cpu_stat_flush_one().
Hmm... the name comes from it being an iterator - most interators are
named _next. But, yeah, the name doesn't signifiy that it unlinks as
it goes along. I'll rename it to cgroup_cpu_stat_pop_updated().
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists