Hi Peter,
On 7/9/18 6:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> Please see the enclosure for the reproducer cputime_adjust.tgz
>
> No, I'm not going to reverse engineer something if you cannot even
> explain what the problem is.
>
I rewrote
Hi Peter,
On 7/9/18 6:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> Please see the enclosure for the reproducer cputime_adjust.tgz
>
> No, I'm not going to reverse engineer something if you cannot even
> explain what the problem is.
>
I rewrote
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> Please see the enclosure for the reproducer cputime_adjust.tgz
No, I'm not going to reverse engineer something if you cannot even
explain what the problem is.
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> Please see the enclosure for the reproducer cputime_adjust.tgz
No, I'm not going to reverse engineer something if you cannot even
explain what the problem is.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:58:50PM +0800, xunlei wrote:
> It is rtime < utime + stime, that is the imprecise tick-based run time
> may be larger than precise sum_exec_runtime scheduler-based run time, it
> can happen with some frequent run-sleep patterns.
You're still comparing two values that
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:58:50PM +0800, xunlei wrote:
> It is rtime < utime + stime, that is the imprecise tick-based run time
> may be larger than precise sum_exec_runtime scheduler-based run time, it
> can happen with some frequent run-sleep patterns.
You're still comparing two values that
Hi Peter,
On 7/5/18 9:21 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
>>> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
>>
>>> For a long time, the process
Hi Peter,
On 7/5/18 9:21 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
>>> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
>>
>>> For a long time, the process
On 7/5/18 9:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
is stime_0,
On 7/5/18 9:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
is stime_0,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> >> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
> >> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
> >
> >> For a long
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> >> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
> >> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
> >
> >> For a long
On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
>> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
>
>> For a long time, the process runs mainly in userspace with
>> run-sleep patterns,
On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
>> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
>
>> For a long time, the process runs mainly in userspace with
>> run-sleep patterns,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
> For a long time, the process runs mainly in userspace with
> run-sleep patterns, and because two different clocks, it
> is possible
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0.
> For a long time, the process runs mainly in userspace with
> run-sleep patterns, and because two different clocks, it
> is possible
On 7/2/18 11:21 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:49:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Well, no, because the Changelog is incomprehensible and the patch
>> doesn't really have useful comments, so I'll have to reverse engineer
>> the entire thing, and I've just
On 7/2/18 11:21 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:49:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Well, no, because the Changelog is incomprehensible and the patch
>> doesn't really have useful comments, so I'll have to reverse engineer
>> the entire thing, and I've just
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:49:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Well, no, because the Changelog is incomprehensible and the patch
> doesn't really have useful comments, so I'll have to reverse engineer
> the entire thing, and I've just not had time for that.
Just as an additional
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:49:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Well, no, because the Changelog is incomprehensible and the patch
> doesn't really have useful comments, so I'll have to reverse engineer
> the entire thing, and I've just not had time for that.
Just as an additional
On 6/26/18 11:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:19:49PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> On 6/22/18 3:15 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>> We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
>>> and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
>>> split
On 6/26/18 11:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:19:49PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> On 6/22/18 3:15 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>> We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
>>> and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
>>> split
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:19:49PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 6/22/18 3:15 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> > We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
> > and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
> > split sometimes.
> >
> > Run tasks with some random
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:19:49PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 6/22/18 3:15 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> > We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
> > and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
> > split sometimes.
> >
> > Run tasks with some random
On 6/22/18 3:15 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
> and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
> split sometimes.
>
> Run tasks with some random run-sleep pattern for a long time, and
> when tick-based time and scheduler
On 6/22/18 3:15 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
> and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
> split sometimes.
>
> Run tasks with some random run-sleep pattern for a long time, and
> when tick-based time and scheduler
On 6/22/18 6:35 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Xunlei,
>
> Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
>
> [auto build test WARNING on tip/sched/core]
> [also build test WARNING on v4.18-rc1 next-20180622]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
On 6/22/18 6:35 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Xunlei,
>
> Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
>
> [auto build test WARNING on tip/sched/core]
> [also build test WARNING on v4.18-rc1 next-20180622]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
Hi Xunlei,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on tip/sched/core]
[also build test WARNING on v4.18-rc1 next-20180622]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Hi Xunlei,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on tip/sched/core]
[also build test WARNING on v4.18-rc1 next-20180622]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
split sometimes.
Run tasks with some random run-sleep pattern for a long time, and
when tick-based time and scheduler sum_exec_runtime hugely drifts
apart(scheduler
We use per-cgroup cpu usage statistics similar to "cgroup rstat",
and encountered a problem that user and sys usages are wrongly
split sometimes.
Run tasks with some random run-sleep pattern for a long time, and
when tick-based time and scheduler sum_exec_runtime hugely drifts
apart(scheduler
32 matches
Mail list logo
