Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 07:39 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > > > Hi Rik, > > > > 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 07:39 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > > > Hi Rik, > > > > 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker > > > com>: > > > > > From:

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 13:07 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 07:39 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : >> > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 13:07 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 07:39 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : >> > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> > > > Hi Rik, >> > > > 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:07 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:07 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel >>> > >>> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel >>> > >>> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel >>> > >>> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-10 7:25 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li : > 2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >>> > From: Rik van Riel >>> > >>> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> Hi Rik, >> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >> > From: Rik van Riel >> > >> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> Hi Rik, >> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >> > From: Rik van Riel >> > >> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' >> > jiffies, the entire period will be

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> Hi Rik, >> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >> > From: Rik van Riel >> > >> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

2016-08-09 22:06 GMT+08:00 Rik van Riel : > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> Hi Rik, >> 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : >> > From: Rik van Riel >> > >> > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' >> > jiffies, the entire period will be

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > Hi Rik, > 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : > > From: Rik van Riel > > > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:59 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > Hi Rik, > 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : > > From: Rik van Riel > > > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq > > time. > > > >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

Hi Rik, 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : > From: Rik van Riel > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq > time. > > This is inaccurate if only a subset of

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

Hi Rik, 2016-07-13 22:50 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker : > From: Rik van Riel > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq > time. > > This is inaccurate if only a subset of the time was actually spent >

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of the time was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of the

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of the time was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of the ticks during a

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 08:50:06AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 14:25 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > >   * Accumulate raw cputime values of dead tasks (sig->[us]time) and > > > live > > >   * tasks (sum on group iteration) belonging to @tsk's group. > > >   */ >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 08:50:06AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 14:25 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > >   * Accumulate raw cputime values of dead tasks (sig->[us]time) and > > > live > > >   * tasks (sum on group iteration) belonging to @tsk's group. > > >   */ >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 14:25 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:25:47PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > From: Rik van Riel > > > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 14:25 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:25:47PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > From: Rik van Riel > > > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:25:47PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > From: Rik van Riel > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq > time. > > This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks'

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:25:47PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > From: Rik van Riel > > Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' > jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq > time. > > This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks' jiffies was >

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks' jiffies was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks' jiffies was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of the ticks during

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 21/06/2016 23:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > cputime_to_jiffies is a division, could we not avoid that by doing > > something like: > > > > irq_jiffies = min(irq, jiffies_to_cputime(max_jiffies)); > > while

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 21/06/2016 23:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > cputime_to_jiffies is a division, could we not avoid that by doing > > something like: > > > > irq_jiffies = min(irq, jiffies_to_cputime(max_jiffies)); > > while

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On 21/06/2016 23:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > cputime_to_jiffies is a division, could we not avoid that by doing > something like: > > irq_jiffies = min(irq, jiffies_to_cputime(max_jiffies)); > while (irq_jiffies > cputime_one_jiffy) { > irq_jiffies -=

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On 21/06/2016 23:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > cputime_to_jiffies is a division, could we not avoid that by doing > something like: > > irq_jiffies = min(irq, jiffies_to_cputime(max_jiffies)); > while (irq_jiffies > cputime_one_jiffy) { > irq_jiffies -=

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 23:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:06:03PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > +static unsigned long irqtime_account_hi_update(unsigned long > > max_jiffies) > >  { > >   u64 *cpustat = kcpustat_this_cpu->cpustat; > > + unsigned long

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 23:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:06:03PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > +static unsigned long irqtime_account_hi_update(unsigned long > > max_jiffies) > >  { > >   u64 *cpustat = kcpustat_this_cpu->cpustat; > > + unsigned long

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:06:03PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > +static unsigned long irqtime_account_hi_update(unsigned long max_jiffies) > { > u64 *cpustat = kcpustat_this_cpu->cpustat; > + unsigned long irq_jiffies; > unsigned long flags; > + u64 irq; > >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:06:03PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote: > +static unsigned long irqtime_account_hi_update(unsigned long max_jiffies) > { > u64 *cpustat = kcpustat_this_cpu->cpustat; > + unsigned long irq_jiffies; > unsigned long flags; > + u64 irq; > >

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

Hi, [auto build test ERROR on tip/sched/core] [also build test ERROR on next-20160616] [cannot apply to v4.7-rc3] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url:

Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

Hi, [auto build test ERROR on tip/sched/core] [also build test ERROR on next-20160616] [cannot apply to v4.7-rc3] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url:

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks' jiffies was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks' jiffies was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of the ticks during

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks' jiffies was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of

[PATCH 1/5] sched,time: count actually elapsed irq & softirq time

From: Rik van Riel Currently, if there was any irq or softirq time during 'ticks' jiffies, the entire period will be accounted as irq or softirq time. This is inaccurate if only a subset of 'ticks' jiffies was actually spent handling irqs, and could conceivably mis-count all of the ticks during