Re: Scheduler accounting inflated for io bound processes.

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: 
> > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:46 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote: 
> > > Running the below testcase shows each process consuming 41-43% of it's
> > > respective cpu while per core idle numbers show 63-65%, a disparity of
> > > roughly 4-8%.  Is this a bug, known behaviour, or consequence of the
> > > process being io bound?
> > 
> > All three I suppose.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5 -F 250 (my tick freq)
> 56.65%    netserver
> 43.35%         pert
> 
> perf top --sort=comm -C 3 -d 5
> 67.16%  netserver
> 32.84%       pert
> 
> If you sample a high freq signal (netperf TCP_RR) at low freq (tick),
> then try to reproduce the original signal, (very familiar) distortion
> results.  Perf doesn't even care about softirq yada yada, so seems it's
> a pure sample rate thing.

Would be very nice to randomize the sampling rate, by randomizing the 
intervals within a 1% range or so - perf tooling will probably recognize 
the different weights.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/