Re: [PATCH] si time accounting accounts bh_disable'd time to si

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:35 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> >> >> > You still do have the problem with local_bh_disable() though, since you
> >> >> > cannot distinguish between having bh disabled and processing softirq.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So a hardirq that hits while you have bh disabled will inflate your
> >> >> > softirq time.
> 
> >> >> Hmm, that bug is valid for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y as well.
> >> >
> >> > And nobody ever noticed?
> >> >
> >> Yes. I inherited the API from VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING along with this
> >> local_bh_disable bug. Agree that we need one extra bit to handle this
> >> case. I will take a stab at fixing this along with refresh of this
> >> patchset if no one else has beaten me to it until then.
> >
> >Make sure to only fix the softirq processing on the hardirq tail, not
> > the ksoftirqd one :-)
> 
> softirq processing from hardirq tail and ksoftirqd are currently
> handled in the same way and I didn't see any issues changing both of
> them. Am I missing something? 

Well, ksoftirq is a task and its runtime should be accounted to that
task, not softirq.. otherwise softirq and task time get all funny, makes
sense?
--
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/