Re: [PATCH 3/3] context_tracking,x86: remove extraneous irq disable & enable from context tracking on syscall entry

[Rik van Riel]

On 05/02/2015 01:27 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> Regarding the user/kernel execution time split measurement:
> 
> 1) the same flag could be used to sample a remote CPU's statistics 
> from another CPU and update the stats in the currently executing task. 
> As long as there's at least one non-nohz-full CPU, this would work. Or 
> are there systems were all CPUs are nohz-full?

On a NO_HZ_FULL system, you need at least one CPU to execute
RCU callbacks, and do other system things like that, so there
is at least one CPU that is not nohz_full.

On NUMA systems, I could even see the sane option being one
CPU that is not isolated or nohz_full per NUMA node, so we
have a place to route irqs, etc...

> 2) Alternatively we could just drive user/kernel split statistics from 
> context switches, which would be inaccurate if the workload is 
> SCHED_FIFO that only rarely context switches.
> 
> How does this sound?

I think option (1) sounds nicer :)

What locks do we need, besides the runqueue lock to make sure
the task does not go away, and later the task's vtime_lock to
update its time statistics?

Do we even need the lock_trace(task) as taken in proc_pid_stack(),
since all we care is whether or not the thing is in kernel, user,
or guest mode?

For guest mode, we set a flag in the task struct somewhere, that
part is easy.

It also looks like dump_trace() can distinguish between normal,
exception, and irq stacks. Not sure how fancy we need to get...

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/