2016-06-07 19:41 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 07/06/2016 10:00, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Commit e9532e69b8d1 ("sched/cputime: Fix steal time accounting vs. CPU
>> hotplug")
>> set rq->prev_* to 0 after a cpu hotplug comes back in order to fix the
>> scenario:
>>
>> | steal is smaller than rq->prev_steal_time we end up with an insane large
>> | value which then gets added to rq->prev_steal_time, resulting in a
>> permanent
>> | wreckage of the accounting.
>>
>> However, it is still buggy.
>>
>> rq->prev_steal_time = 0:
>>
>> As Rik pointed out:
>>
>> | setting rq->prev_irq_time to 0 in the guest, and then getting a giant
>> value from
>> | the host, could result in a very large of steal_jiffies.
>>
>> rq->prev_steal_time_rq = 0:
>>
>> | steal = paravirt_steal_clock(cpu_of(rq));
>> | steal -= rq->prev_steal_time_rq;
>> |
>> | if (unlikely(steal > delta))
>> | steal = delta;
>> |
>> | rq->prev_steal_time_rq += steal;
>> | delta -= steal;
>> |
>> | rq->clock_task += delta;
>>
>> steal is a giant value and rq->prev_steal_time_rq is 0,
>> rq->prev_steal_time_rq
>> grows in delta granularity, rq->clock_task can't ramp up until
>> rq->prev_steal_time_rq
>> catches up steal clock since delta value will be 0 after reducing steal
>> time from
>> normal execution time. That's why I obersved that cpuhg/1-12 continue
>> running
>> until rq->prev_steal_time_rq catches up steal clock timestamp.
>>
>> I believe rq->prev_irq_time has similar issue. So this patch fix it by
>> setting
>> rq->prev_* to current irq time and steal clock timestamp after a cpu
>> hotplug
>> comes back.
>
> I'm not sure this patch is necessary. Instead you could just revert
> commit e9532e69b8d1. The previous patch obviously makes it unnecessary
> to reset rq->prev_steal_time and rq->prev_steal_time_rq, and the reset
> of rq->prev_irq_time looks like a no-op to me.
The reason why I'm not just simple revert it is that commit mentioned
"steal is smaller than rq->prev_steal_time we end up with an insane
large value which then gets added to rq->prev_steal_time, resulting in
a permanent wreckage of the accounting." Though I didn't meet such
scenario. So I just do what that commit really want to do.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
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
