[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191129100639.GI831@blackbody.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:06:39 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/numa: advanced per-cgroup numa statistic
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 01:19:33PM +0800, 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> I did some research regarding cpuacct, and find cpuacct_charge() is a good
> place to do hierarchical update, however, what we get there is the execution
> time delta since last update_curr().
I wouldn't extend cpuacct, I'd like to look into using the rstat
mechanism for per-CPU runtime collection. (Most certainly I won't get
down to this until mid December though.)
> I'm afraid we can't just do local/remote accumulation since the sample period
> now is changing, still have to accumulate the execution time into locality
> regions.
My idea was to decouple time from the locality counters completely. It'd
be up to the monitoring application to normalize differences wrt
sampling rate (and handle wrap arounds).
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists