On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:29:40PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > +static bool psi_update_stats(struct psi_group *group)
> > +{
> > + u64 some[NR_PSI_RESOURCES] = { 0, };
> > + u64 full[NR_PSI_RESOURCES] = { 0, };
> > + unsigned long nonidle_total = 0;
> > + unsigned long missed_periods;
> > + unsigned long expires;
> > + int cpu;
> > + int r;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&group->stat_lock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Collect the per-cpu time buckets and average them into a
> > + * single time sample that is normalized to wallclock time.
> > + *
> > + * For averaging, each CPU is weighted by its non-idle time in
> > + * the sampling period. This eliminates artifacts from uneven
> > + * loading, or even entirely idle CPUs.
> > + *
> > + * We could pin the online CPUs here, but the noise introduced
> > + * by missing up to one sample period from CPUs that are going
> > + * away shouldn't matter in practice - just like the noise of
> > + * previously offlined CPUs returning with a non-zero sample.
>
> But why!? cpuu_read_lock() is neither expensive nor complicated. So why
> try and avoid it?
Hm, I don't feel strongly about it either way. I'll add it.
> > + /* total= */
> > + for (r = 0; r < NR_PSI_RESOURCES; r++) {
> > + do_div(some[r], max(nonidle_total, 1UL));
> > + do_div(full[r], max(nonidle_total, 1UL));
> > +
> > + group->some[r] += some[r];
> > + group->full[r] += full[r];
>
> group->some[r] = div64_ul(some[r], max(nonidle_total, 1UL));
> group->full[r] = div64_ul(full[r], max(nonidle_total, 1UL));
>
> Is easier to read imo.
Sounds good to me, I'll change that.
