lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes.

* David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/26/13 9:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:37:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the
> >>>intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize
> >>>the different weights.
> >>
> >>You're suggesting adding noise to the regular kernel tick?
> >
> >No, to the perf interval (which I assumed Mike was using to profile this?)
> >- although slightly randomizing the kernel tick might make sense as well,
> >especially if it's hrtimer driven and reprogrammed anyway.
> >
> >I might have gotten it all wrong though ...
>
> Sampled S/W events like cpu-clock have a fixed rate
> (perf_swevent_init_hrtimer converts freq to sample_period).
>
> Sampled H/W events have an adaptive period that converges to the desired
> sampling rate. The first few samples come in 10 usecs are so apart and
> the time period expands to the desired rate. As I recall that adaptive
> algorithm starts over every time the event is scheduled in.

Yes, but last I checked it (2 years ago? :-) the auto-freq code was
converging pretty well to the time clock, with little jitter - in essence
turning it into a fixed-period, fixed-frequency sampling method. That
would explain Mike's results.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-27 01:21    [W:0.105 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site