From c308b56b5398779cd3da0f62ab26b0453494c3d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:04:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] sched: Fix nohz load accounting -- again! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Various people reported nohz load tracking still being wrecked, but Doug spotted the actual problem. We fold the nohz remainder in too soon, causing us to loose samples and under-account. So instead of playing catch-up up-front, always do a single load-fold with whatever state we encounter and only then fold the nohz remainder and play catch-up. Reported-by: Doug Smythies Reported-by: LesÅ=82aw Kope=C4=87 Reported-by: Aman Gupta Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-4v31etnhgg9kwd6ocgx3rxl8@git.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched/core.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 47614a5cdd47..e3ccc13c4caa 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -2266,13 +2266,10 @@ calc_load_n(unsigned long load, unsigned long exp, * Once we've updated the global active value, we need to apply the exponential * weights adjusted to the number of cycles missed. */ -static void calc_global_nohz(unsigned long ticks) +static void calc_global_nohz(void) { long delta, active, n; - if (time_before(jiffies, calc_load_update)) - return; - /* * If we crossed a calc_load_update boundary, make sure to fold * any pending idle changes, the respective CPUs might have @@ -2284,31 +2281,25 @@ static void calc_global_nohz(unsigned long ticks) atomic_long_add(delta, &calc_load_tasks); /* - * If we were idle for multiple load cycles, apply them. + * It could be the one fold was all it took, we done! */ - if (ticks >= LOAD_FREQ) { - n = ticks / LOAD_FREQ; + if (time_before(jiffies, calc_load_update + 10)) + return; - active = atomic_long_read(&calc_load_tasks); - active = active > 0 ? active * FIXED_1 : 0; + /* + * Catch-up, fold however many we are behind still + */ + delta = jiffies - calc_load_update - 10; + n = 1 + (delta / LOAD_FREQ); - avenrun[0] = calc_load_n(avenrun[0], EXP_1, active, n); - avenrun[1] = calc_load_n(avenrun[1], EXP_5, active, n); - avenrun[2] = calc_load_n(avenrun[2], EXP_15, active, n); + active = atomic_long_read(&calc_load_tasks); + active = active > 0 ? active * FIXED_1 : 0; - calc_load_update += n * LOAD_FREQ; - } + avenrun[0] = calc_load_n(avenrun[0], EXP_1, active, n); + avenrun[1] = calc_load_n(avenrun[1], EXP_5, active, n); + avenrun[2] = calc_load_n(avenrun[2], EXP_15, active, n); - /* - * Its possible the remainder of the above division also crosses - * a LOAD_FREQ period, the regular check in calc_global_load() - * which comes after this will take care of that. - * - * Consider us being 11 ticks before a cycle completion, and us - * sleeping for 4*LOAD_FREQ + 22 ticks, then the above code will - * age us 4 cycles, and the test in calc_global_load() will - * pick up the final one. - */ + calc_load_update += n * LOAD_FREQ; } #else void calc_load_account_idle(struct rq *this_rq) @@ -2320,7 +2311,7 @@ static inline long calc_load_fold_idle(void) return 0; } -static void calc_global_nohz(unsigned long ticks) +static void calc_global_nohz(void) { } #endif @@ -2348,8 +2339,6 @@ void calc_global_load(unsigned long ticks) { long active; - calc_global_nohz(ticks); - if (time_before(jiffies, calc_load_update + 10)) return; @@ -2361,6 +2350,16 @@ void calc_global_load(unsigned long ticks) avenrun[2] = calc_load(avenrun[2], EXP_15, active); calc_load_update += LOAD_FREQ; + + /* + * Account one period with whatever state we found before + * folding in the nohz state and ageing the entire idle period. + * + * This avoids loosing a sample when we go idle between + * calc_load_account_active() (10 ticks ago) and now and thus + * under-accounting. + */ + calc_global_nohz(); } /* -- GitLab