On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 23:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:06:07PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> >
> > @@ -53,36 +56,72 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(seqcount_t, irq_time_seq);
> > * softirq -> hardirq, hardirq -> softirq
> > *
> > * When exiting hardirq or softirq time, account the elapsed time.
> > + *
> > + * When exiting softirq time, subtract the amount of hardirq time
> > that
> > + * interrupted this softirq run, to avoid double accounting of
> > that time.
> > */
> > void irqtime_account_irq(struct task_struct *curr, int irqtype)
> > {
> > + u64 prev_softirq_start;
> > + u64 prev_hardirq;
> > + u64 hardirq_time;
> > + s64 delta = 0;
> We appear to always assign to delta, so this initialization seems
> superfluous.
It gets rid of a compiler warning, since gcc is not
smart enough to know that the result of in_softirq()
will be the same throughout the function.
Using a bool leaving_softirq = in_softirq() also
gets rid of the warning, and makes the function a
little more readable, so I am doing that.
> > + if (irqtype == HARDIRQ_OFFSET) {
> > + delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu) -
> > __this_cpu_read(hardirq_start_time);
> > + __this_cpu_add(hardirq_start_time, delta);
> > + } else do {
> > + u64 now = sched_clock_cpu(cpu);
> > + hardirq_time = READ_ONCE(per_cpu(cpu_hardirq_time,
> > cpu));
> Which makes this per_cpu(,cpu) usage somewhat curious. What's wrong
> with
> __this_cpu_read() ?
I played around with it a bit, and it seems that
__this_cpu_read does not want to nest inside
READ_ONCE. Nobody else seems to be doing that,
either.
Back to READ_ONCE(per_cpu(,cpu)) it is...
> Maybe split the whole thing on irqtype at the very start, instead of
> the
> endless repeated branches?
I untangled the whole thing in the next version,
which I will post after testing.
--
All rights reversed
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
