* Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch adds steal guest time support to full dynticks CPU
> time accounting. After 'commit ff9a9b4c4334 ("sched, time: Switch
> VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN to jiffy granularity")', time is jiffy
> based sampling even if it's still listened to ring boundaries, so
> steal_account_process_tick() is reused to account how much 'ticks'
> are steal time after the last accumulation.
WTF? This changelog has 4 grammar errors and it sails through review just like
that?
1) What does 'time is jiffy based sampling' mean?
2) what does 'even if it's still listened to ring boundaries' mean?
3) "how muck 'ticks'"?
4) "are steal time"?
So I fixed this to be at least parseable:
This patch adds guest steal-time support to full dynticks CPU
time accounting. After the following commit:
ff9a9b4c4334 ("sched, time: Switch VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN to jiffy granularity")
... time sampling became jiffy based, even if it's still listened
to ring boundaries, so steal_account_process_tick() is reused
to account how many 'ticks' are stolen-time, after the last accumulation.
Although I'm still wondering what this key phrase means:
even if it's still listened to ring boundaries,
Could someone please explain what this means? (Beyond the 5th grammar error this
portion has, which I'll fix once it actually makes sense to me...)
Furthermore, the real problem that made me go back and tear the changelog apart is
that the code flow itself is incredibly ugly and fragile as hell:
> write_seqcount_begin(&tsk->vtime_seqcount);
> tsk->vtime_snap_whence = VTIME_SYS;
> if (vtime_delta(tsk)) {
> + cputime_t steal_time;
> + unsigned long delta_st = steal_account_process_tick();
> delta_cpu = get_vtime_delta(tsk);
> + steal_time = jiffies_to_cputime(delta_st);
> +
> + if (steal_time >= delta_cpu) {
> + write_seqcount_end(&tsk->vtime_seqcount);
> + return;
> + }
> + delta_cpu -= steal_time;
> account_user_time(tsk, delta_cpu, cputime_to_scaled(delta_cpu));
> }
> write_seqcount_end(&tsk->vtime_seqcount);
> }
Yeah, a return in the middle of a locking critical section, really??
Also, how about basic style details like leaving an extra newline after local
variable definition sections, like every other scheduler function does?
Also, what's this thing about calling a time unit variable 'delta_cpu'? When I
reviewed this one of my first reactions was: "Why are we comparing time to CPU
ID??".
Plus as an added bonus a 'delta_st' variable name to count ticks, which variable
is not just badly named but single-use. WTF?
Something like this looks much better and shorter:
void vtime_account_user(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
cputime_t delta_time, steal_time;
write_seqcount_begin(&tsk->vtime_seqcount);
tsk->vtime_snap_whence = VTIME_SYS;
if (vtime_delta(tsk)) {
delta_time = get_vtime_delta(tsk);
steal_time = jiffies_to_cputime(steal_account_process_tick());
if (steal_time < delta_time) {
delta_time -= steal_time;
account_user_time(tsk, delta_time, cputime_to_scaled(delta_time));
}
}
write_seqcount_end(&tsk->vtime_seqcount);
}
See the consistent, obvious naming of the variables and the clear code flow?
(Totally untested, etc.)
But I'm very annoyed that this was in v3 and still has so many trivial problems:
incredibly bad and confusing spelling, totally bad, fragile, apparently write-only
code - and I counted like three acks from 3 other people who should really know
better ...
This is core scheduler code!
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
