Re: [BUG nohz]: wrong user and system time accounting

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:09:10PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:25:46 -0400
> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:18:17 +0200
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:59:54PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:  
> > > > 2017-03-30 21:38 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>:    
> > > > > If it works, we may want to take that solution, likely less performance sensitive
> > > > > than using sched_clock(). In fact sched_clock() is fast, especially as we require it to
> > > > > be stable for nohz_full, but using it involves costly conversion back and forth to jiffies.    
> > > > 
> > > > So both Rik and you agree with the skew tick solution, I will try it
> > > > tomorrow. Btw, if we should just add random offset to the cpu in the
> > > > nohz_full mode or add random offset to all cpus like the codes above?    
> > > 
> > > Lets just keep it to all CPUs for simplicty.
> > > Also please add a comment that explains why we need that skew_tick on nohz_full.  
> > 
> > I've tried all the test-cases we discussed in this thread with skew_tick=1
> > and it worked as expected in bare-metal and KVM guests.
> > 
> > However, I found a test-case that works in bare-metal but show problems
> > in KVM guests. It could something that's KVM specific, or it could be
> > something that's harder to reproduce in bare-metal.
> 
> After discussing some findings on this issue with Rik, I realized that
> we don't add the skew when restarting the tick in tick_nohz_restart().
> Adding the offset there seems to solve this problem.

Are you sure? tick_nohz_restart() doesn't seem to override the initial skew. It
always forwards the expiration time on top of the last tick.