[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201201150114.GZ2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 16:01:14 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] irqtime: Move irqtime entry accounting after irq
offset incrementation
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:35:45PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> And that one too makes things simple. But note that
>
> account_hardirq_enter_time()
>
> will still need some preempt count checks to see if
> this is a nested hardirq, a hardirq interrupting a softirq
> or a hardirq interrupting a task.
So the current tests get that all correct in a single function.
Splitting it out will just result in more lines to get wrong.
That is, I don't think you can do it saner than:
account_softirq_enter() := irqtime_account_irq(curr, SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
account_softirq_exit() := irqtime_account_irq(curr, 0);
account_hardirq_enter() := irqtime_account_irq(curr, HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
account_hardirq_exit() := irqtime_account_irq(curr, 0);
Fundamentally you have to determine the previous context to determine
where to account the delta to. Note that when the previous context is
task context we throw away the delta.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists