[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [BUG nohz]: wrong user and system time accounting
    On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:56:47 +0800
    Wanpeng Li <> wrote:

    > Actually after I bisect, the first bad commit is ff9a9b4c4334 ("sched,
    > time: Switch VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN to jiffy granularity"). The bug
    > can be reproduced readily if CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE is true,
    > then just stress all the online cpus or just one cpu and leave others
    > idle(so it stresses the global timekeeping one), top show 100%
    > sys-time. And another way to reproduce it is by nohz_full, and gives
    > the stress to the house keeping cpu, the top show 100% sys-time of the
    > house keeping cpu, and also the other cpus who have at least two tasks
    > running on and in full_nohz mode.

    We're not short on reproducers, I have a new one too:

    This is a single threaded task that reproduces the issue. If you
    run it as instructed, you'll get:

    - nohz_full CPU: 95% system time 5% idle time
    - non-nohz_full CPU: 95% user time 5% idle time (expected behavior)

    This reproduces the issue, but not for the reasons I expected. I was
    trying to mimic what I was seeing on my trace when tracing the two
    task problem. Which is: a task stays 995us in user-space and then
    enters the kernel. Time won't be accounted for user-space because
    we're not 1 jiffies yet, but if the task stays in the kernel for more
    than 5us, then time will be accounted for system time when going
    back to user-space.

    However, what really seems to be happening is: acct-bug is causing
    the tick to be re-activated (why? it shouldn't) and that causes the
    issue to appear. This is consistent with my other observations: I
    can only reproduce the issue if the nohz_full CPU re-activates the tick.

    > Let's consider the cpu which has responsibility for the global
    > timekeeping, as the tracing posted above, the vtime_account_user() is
    > called before tick_sched_timer() which will update jiffies,

    But the vtime_account_user() call and the jiffies update happen
    on different CPUs, no? So the ordering shouldn't matter.

    > so jiffies
    > is stale in vtime_account_user() and the run time in userspace is
    > skipped, the vtime_user_enter() is called after jiffies update, so
    > both the time in userspace and in kernel are accumulated to sys time.
    > If the housekeeping cpu is idle when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL, everything is
    > fine. However, if you give stress to the housekeeping cpu, top will
    > show 100% sys-time of both the housekeeping cpu and the other cpus who
    > have at least two tasks running on and in full_nohz mode.

    The housekeeping CPUs are idle with my reproducers.

    > I think it
    > is because the stress delays the timer interrupt handling in some
    > degree, then the jiffies is not updated timely before other cpus
    > access it in vtime_account_user().
    > I think we can keep syscalls/exceptions context tracking still in
    > jiffies based sampling and utilize local_clock() in vtime_delta()
    > again for irqs which avoids jiffies stale influence. I can make a
    > patch if the idea is acceptable or there is any better proposal. :)
    > Regards,
    > Wanpeng Li

     \ /
      Last update: 2017-03-27 20:39    [W:2.736 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site