Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 May 2021 11:28:20 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: Utime and stime are less when getrusage (RUSAGE_THREAD) is executed on a tickless CPU. |
| |
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:24:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 06:30:36AM +0000, hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com wrote: > > Hi Ingo, Peter, Juri, and Vincent. > > > > > > > Your email is malformed. > > > > I'm sorry. I was sent in the wrong format. I correct it and resend. > > Thank you, Peter, for pointing this out. > > > > > > I found that when I run getrusage(RUSAGE_THREAD) on a tickless CPU, > > the utime and stime I get are less than the actual time, unlike when I run > > getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF) on a single thread. > > This problem seems to be caused by the fact that se.sum_exec_runtime is not > > updated just before getting the information from 'current'. > > In the current implementation, task_cputime_adjusted() calls task_cputime() to > > get the 'current' utime and stime, then calls cputime_adjust() to adjust the > > sum of utime and stime to be equal to cputime.sum_exec_runtime. On a tickless > > CPU, sum_exec_runtime is not updated periodically, so there seems to be a > > discrepancy with the actual time. > > Therefore, I think I should include a process to update se.sum_exec_runtime > > just before getting the information from 'current' (as in other processes > > except RUSAGE_THREAD). I'm thinking of the following improvement. > > > > @@ void getrusage(struct task_struct *p, int who, struct rusage *r) > > if (who == RUSAGE_THREAD) { > > + task_sched_runtime(current); > > task_cputime_adjusted(current, &utime, &stime); > > > > Is there any possible problem with this? > > Would be superfluous for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_NATIVE=y > architectures at the very least. > > It also doesn't help any of the other callers, like for example procfs. > > Something like the below ought to work and fix all variants I think. But > it does make the call significantly more expensive. > > Looking at thread_group_cputime() that already does something like this, > but that's also susceptible to a variant of this very same issue; since > it doesn't call it unconditionally, nor on all tasks, so if current > isn't part of the threadgroup and/or another task is on a nohz_full cpu, > things will go wobbly again. > > There's a note about syscall performance there, so clearly someone seems > to care about that aspect of things, but it does suck for nohz_full. > > Frederic, didn't we have remote ticks that should help with this stuff? > > And mostly I think the trade-off here is that if you run on nohz_full, > you're not expected to go do syscalls anyway (because they're sodding > expensive) and hence the accuracy of these sort of things is mostly > irrelevant. > > So it might be the use-case is just fundamentally bonkers and we > shouldn't really bother fixing this. > > Anyway?
Typing be hard... that should 'obviously' be reading: Anyone?
> > --- > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c > index 872e481d5098..620871c8e4f8 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c > @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr, struct prev_cputime *prev, > void task_cputime_adjusted(struct task_struct *p, u64 *ut, u64 *st) > { > struct task_cputime cputime = { > - .sum_exec_runtime = p->se.sum_exec_runtime, > + .sum_exec_runtime = task_sched_runtime(p), > }; > > task_cputime(p, &cputime.utime, &cputime.stime);
| |