Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1462683

Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/cputime: Mitigate performance regression in times()/clock_gettime()

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

Show all headers | View raw


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


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