On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:27:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:50 +0530, Ankita Garg wrote:
>
> > Thanks Peter for the explanation...
> >
> > I agree with the above and that is the reason why I did not see weird
> > values with cpu_time. But, run_delay still would suffer skews as the end
> > points for delta could be taken on different cpus due to migration (more
> > so on RT kernel due to the push-pull operations). With the below patch,
> > I could not reproduce the issue I had seen earlier. After every dequeue,
> > we take the delta and start wait measurements from zero when moved to a
> > different rq.
>
> OK, so task delay delay accounting is broken because it doesn't take
> migration into account.
>
> What you've done is make it symmetric wrt enqueue, and account it like
>
> cpu0 cpu1
>
> enqueue
> <wait-d1>
> dequeue
> enqueue
> <wait-d2>
> run
>
> Where you add both d1 and d2 to the run_delay,.. right?
>
Thanks for reviewing the patch. The above is exactly what I have done.
> This seems like a good fix, however it looks like the patch will break
> compilation in !CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS && !CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT, of it
> failing to provide a stub for sched_info_dequeue() in that case.
Fixed. Pl. find the new patch below.
Signed-off-by: Ankita Garg <ankita@in.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: suresh.b.siddha@intel.com
Cc: aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: David Bahi <DBahi@novell.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
46ac22bab4