lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/fair: change where we report sched stats
From
Date
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 16:48 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: 
> On 12/10/2014 01:23 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 13:21 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >
> >> This patch moves stat stuff to after the schedule, right as we are waking up,
> >
> > But sleep/block ends when the task is awakened/enqueued, not when it
> > gets the CPU. You're adding scheduling latency, breaking accounting.
> >
>
> Yes I'm aware of that. I don't care if the delay time is slightly
> higher than normal, I care about knowing exactly why we were sleeping to
> begin with. I suppose I could leave the accounting part where it is and
> then just fire the tracepoint when it's put on the CPU so we get the
> best of both worlds, but honestly I don't feel like adding the extra
> scheduling latency into the accounting is that big of a deal. Thanks,

I think sleep/iowait should remain what they are, sleep/iowait end at
wakeup. I don't think waker trace is useless either for that matter.
Who/when ends a sleep period is just as much a part of the picture as
what triggered that sleep. Waker scheduling latency, thumb twiddling
etc. extend sleep.

Shrug, maintainer call. I don't recall ever having any difficulty
determining why a task went to sleep, so don't get it.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-12-11 05:01    [W:0.112 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site