Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1462683
| From | Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() |
| Date | 2016-08-15 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s6mQx-3Wz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <s4Gqm-b4-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <s5jBo-1uO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <s6kOJ-2Gt-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <s6lB7-3do-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <s6mnv-3MG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:19:01AM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > Is this really equivalent though? It updates one task instead of all > > tasks in the group and there is no guarantee that tsk == current. > > Oh, my intention was to update runtime on current. > Ok, so minimally that would need addressing. However, then I would worry that two tasks in a group calling the function at the same time would see different results because each of them updated a different task. Such a situation is inherently race-prone anyway but it's a large enough functional difference to be worth calling out. Minimally, I don't think such a patch is a replacement for Giovanni's which is functionally equivalent to the current code but could be layered on top if it is proven to be ok. > > Glancing at it, it should monotonically increase but it looks like it > > would calculate stale data. > > Yes, until the next tick on a CPU, the patch does not count partial > runtime of thread running on that CPU. However that was the behaviour > before commit d670ec13178d0 - that how old thread_group_sched_runtime() > function worked: > Sure, but does this patch not reintroduce the "SMP wobble" and the problem of "the diff of 'process' should always be >= the diff of 'thread'" ? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> - 2016-08-12 14:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz> - 2016-08-15 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-08-15 10:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> - 2016-08-15 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-08-15 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> - 2016-08-15 12:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> - 2016-08-15 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime() Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:30 +0200
csiph-web