From: cruzzhao <cruzzhao@linux.alibaba.com>
To: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: introduce CPUTIME_FORCEIDLE_TASK
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:06:21 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f79a301f-9c6c-4d29-9f79-1c66a492b909@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pb7jf52x2qpofgttzz3fphkeiuxuamjbjqb64paw7dvvtv2sxd@mgcol2syra6z>
在 2024/2/26 23:28, Michal Koutný 写道:
> Hello.
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 04:41:34PM +0800, Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>> As core sched uses rq_clock() as clock source to account forceidle
>> time, irq time will be accounted into forceidle time. However, in
>> some scenarios, forceidle sum will be much larger than exec runtime,
>> e.g., we observed that forceidle time of task calling futex_wake()
>> is 50% larger than exec runtime, which is confusing.
>
> And those 50% turned out to be all attributed to irq time (that's
> suggested by your diagram)?
>
> (Could you argue about that time with data from /proc/stat alone?)
>
Sure. task 26281 is the task with this problem, and we bound it to cpu0,
and it's SMT sibling is running stress-ng -c 1.
[root@localhost 26281]# cat ./sched |grep -E
"forceidle|sum_exec_runtime" && cat /proc/stat |grep cpu0 && echo "" &&
sleep 10 && cat ./sched |grep -E "forceidle|sum_exec_runtime" && cat
/proc/stat |grep cpu0
se.sum_exec_runtime : 3353.788406
core_forceidle_sum : 4522.497675
core_forceidle_task_sum : 3354.383413
cpu0 1368 74 190 87023149 1 2463 3308 0 0 0
se.sum_exec_runtime : 3952.897106
core_forceidle_sum : 5311.687917
core_forceidle_task_sum : 3953.571613
cpu0 1368 74 190 87024043 1 2482 3308 0 0 0
As we can see from the data, se.sum_exec_runtime increased by 600ms,
core_forceidle_sum(using rq_clock) increased by 790ms,
and core_forceidle_task_sum(using rq_clock_task, which subtracts irq
time) increased by 600ms, closing to sum_exec_runtime.
As for the irq time from /proc/stat, irq time increased by 19 ticks,
190ms, closing to the difference of increment of core_forceidle_sum and
se.sum_exec_runtime.
>> Interfaces:
>> - task level: /proc/$pid/sched, row core_forceidle_task_sum.
>> - cgroup level: /sys/fs/cgroup/$cg/cpu.stat, row
>> core_sched.force_idle_task_usec.
>
> Hm, when you touch this, could you please also add a section into
> Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst about these entries?
>
Sure, in the next version, I will update the document.
> (Alternatively, explain in the commit message why those aren't supposed
> to be documented.
> Alternative altenratively, would mere documenting of
> core_sched.force_idle_usec help to prevent the confusion that you called
> out above?)
>
> Also, I wonder if the rstat counting code shouldn't be hidden with
> CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG too? (IIUC, that's the same one required to see
> analogous stats in /proc/$pid/sched.)
>
> Regards,
> Michal
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-29 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-19 8:41 [PATCH] sched/core: introduce CPUTIME_FORCEIDLE_TASK Cruz Zhao
2024-02-26 15:28 ` Michal Koutný
2024-02-29 11:06 ` cruzzhao [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f79a301f-9c6c-4d29-9f79-1c66a492b909@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=cruzzhao@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).