lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] cputime patch for 2.6.30-rc6
From
Date
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 11:00 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:28:53 +0100 (BST)
> Michael Abbott <michael@araneidae.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > + for_each_possible_cpu(i)
> > > > + idletime = cputime64_add(idletime, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.idle);
> > > > + idletime = cputime64_to_clock_t(idletime);
> > > >
> > > > do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(&uptime);
> > > > monotonic_to_bootbased(&uptime);
> > >
> > > This is a world readable proc file, adding a for_each_possible_cpu() in
> > > there scares me a little (this wouldn't be the first and only such case
> > > though).
> > >
> > > Suppose you have lots of cpus, and all those cpus are dirtying those
> > > cachelines (who's updating idle time when they're idle?), then this loop
> > > can cause a massive cacheline bounce fest.
> > >
> > > Then think about userspace doing:
> > > while :; do cat /proc/uptime > /dev/null; done
> >
> > Well, the offending code derives pretty well directly from /proc/stat,
> > which is used, for example, by top. So if there is an issue then I guess
> > it already exists.
> >
> > There is a pending problem in this code: for a multiple cpu system we'll
> > end up with more idle time than elapsed time, which is not really very
> > nice. Unfortunately *something* has to be done here, as it looks as if
> > .utime and .stime (at least for init_task) have lost any meaning. I sort
> > of though of dividing by number of cpus, but that's not going to work very
> > well..
>
> I don't see a problem here. In an idle multiple cpu system there IS
> more idle time than elapsed time. What would makes sense is to compare
> elapsed time * #cpus with the idle time. But then there is cpu hotplug
> which forces you to look at the delta of two measuring points where the
> number of cpus did not change.

Sure, this one case isn't that bad, esp. as you note its about idle
time. However, see for example /proc/stat and fs/proc/stat.c:

for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
user = cputime64_add(user, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.user);
nice = cputime64_add(nice, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.nice);
system = cputime64_add(system, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.system);
idle = cputime64_add(idle, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.idle);
idle = cputime64_add(idle, arch_idle_time(i));
iowait = cputime64_add(iowait, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.iowait);
irq = cputime64_add(irq, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.irq);
softirq = cputime64_add(softirq, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.softirq);
steal = cputime64_add(steal, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.steal);
guest = cputime64_add(guest, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.guest);
for_each_irq_nr(j) {
sum += kstat_irqs_cpu(j, i);
}
sum += arch_irq_stat_cpu(i);
}
If that isn't a problem on a large machine, then I don't know what is.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-19 11:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site