[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190208143255.9dec696b15f03bf00f4c60c2@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:32:55 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 1/2] genriq: Avoid summation loops for /proc/stat
On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:48:03 +0100 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Waiman reported that on large systems with a large amount of interrupts the
> readout of /proc/stat takes a long time to sum up the interrupt
> statistics. In principle this is not a problem. but for unknown reasons
> some enterprise quality software reads /proc/stat with a high frequency.
>
> The reason for this is that interrupt statistics are accounted per cpu. So
> the /proc/stat logic has to sum up the interrupt stats for each interrupt.
>
> This can be largely avoided for interrupts which are not marked as
> 'PER_CPU' interrupts by simply adding a per interrupt summation counter
> which is incremented along with the per interrupt per cpu counter.
>
> The PER_CPU interrupts need to avoid that and use only per cpu accounting
> because they share the interrupt number and the interrupt descriptor and
> concurrent updates would conflict or require unwanted synchronization.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct irq_desc {
> unsigned int core_internal_state__do_not_mess_with_it;
> unsigned int depth; /* nested irq disables */
> unsigned int wake_depth; /* nested wake enables */
> + unsigned int tot_count;
Confused. Isn't this going to quickly overflow?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists