Re: [PATCH 09/10] s390/cputime: delayed accounting of system time

From: Martin Schwidefsky
Date: Tue Dec 13 2016 - 08:21:41 EST

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:13:22 +0100
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:02:30 +0100
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:27:54AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > 3) The call to vtime_flush in account_process_tick is done in irq context from
> > > update_process_times. hardirq_offset==1 is also correct.
> >
> > Let's see this for example:
> >
> > + if ((tsk->flags & PF_VCPU) && (irq_count() - hardirq_offset == 0))
> > + S390_lowcore.guest_timer += timer;
> >
> > If the tick is interrupting guest, we have accounted the guest time on tick IRQ entry.
> > Now we are in the middle of the tick interrupt and since hardirq_offset is 1, we
> > are taking the above path by accounting half of the tick-IRQ time as guest, which is wrong,
> > it's actually IRQ time.
> Hmm, you got me there. The system time from irq_enter until account_process_tick
> is reached is indeed IRQ time. It is not much but it is incorrect. The best fix
> would be to rip out the accounting of the system time from account_process_tick
> as irq_enter / irq_exit will do system time accounting anyway. To do that
> do_account_vtime needs to be split, because for the task switch we need to
> account the system time of the previous task.

New patch for the delayed cputime account. I can not just rip out system time
accounting from account_process_tick after all, I need a sync point for the
steal time calculation. It basically is the same patch as before but with a new
helper update_tsk_timer, the removal of hardirq_offset and a simplification
for do_account_vtime: the last accounting delta is either hardirq time for
the tick or system time for the task switch.

Keeping my finger crossed..