lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 6/6] pseries/sysfs: Minimise IPI noise while reading [idle_][s]purr
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hello Naveen,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:28:48PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
>> >From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >
> [..snip..]
>
>> >+
>> >+static ssize_t show_purr(struct device *dev,
>> >+ struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>> > {
>> >- u64 *ret = val;
>> >+ struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev);
>> >+ struct util_acct_stats *stats;
>> >
>> >- *ret = read_this_idle_purr();
>> >+ stats = get_util_stats_ptr(cpu->dev.id);
>> >+ return sprintf(buf, "%llx\n", stats->latest_purr);
>>
>> This alters the behavior of the current sysfs purr file. I am not sure if it
>> is reasonable to return the same PURR value across a 10ms window.
>
>
> It does reduce it to 10ms window. I am not sure if anyone samples PURR
> etc faster than that rate.
>
> I measured how much time it takes to read the purr, spurr, idle_purr,
> idle_spurr files back-to-back. It takes not more than 150us. From
> lparstat will these values be read back-to-back ? If so, we can reduce
> the staleness_tolerance to something like 500us and still avoid extra
> IPIs. If not, what is the maximum delay between the first sysfs file
> read and the last sysfs file read ?

Oh, for lparstat usage, this is perfectly fine.

I meant that there could be other users of [s]purr who might care. I
don't know of one, but since this is an existing sysfs interface, I
wanted to point out that the behavior might change.

>
>>
>> I wonder if we should introduce a sysctl interface to control thresholding.
>> It can default to 0, which disables thresholding so that the existing
>> behavior continues. Applications (lparstat) can optionally set it to suit
>> their use.
>
> We would be introducing 3 new sysfs interfaces that way instead of
> two.
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/purr_spurr_staleness
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/idle_purr
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/idle_spurr
>
> I don't have a problem with this. Nathan, Michael, thoughts on this?
>
>
> The alternative is to have a procfs interface, something like
> /proc/powerpc/resource_util_stats
>
> which gives a listing similar to /proc/stat, i.e
>
> CPUX <purr> <idle_purr> <spurr> <idle_spurr>
>
> Even in this case, the values can be obtained in one-shot with a
> single IPI and be printed in the row corresponding to the CPU.

Right -- and that would be optimal requiring a single system call, at
the cost of using a legacy interface.

The other option would be to drop this patch and to just go with patches
1-5 introducing the new sysfs interfaces for idle_[s]purr. It isn't
entirely clear how often this would be used, or its actual impact. We
can perhaps consider this optimization if and when this causes
problems...


Thanks,
Naveen

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-02 09:35    [W:0.088 / U:3.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site