[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191120210440.GR3079@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 22:04:40 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] sched/cputime: Support other fields on
kcpustat_field()
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:51:42PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Nice VS unnice cputime accounting may be inaccurate if
> > + * the nice value has changed since the last vtime update.
> > + * But proper fix would involve interrupting target on nice
> > + * updates which is a no go on nohz_full.
>
> Well, we actually already interrupt the target in both sys_nice() and
> sys_setpriority() etc. syscall variants: we call set_user_nice() which
> calls resched_curr() and the task is sent an IPI and runs through a
> reschedule.
I think we can easily avoid doing that IPI when we find it is the only
task on that runqueue. Which is exactly the case for NOHZ_FULL.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists