public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Xiaobing Li <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] io_uring: Statistics of the true utilization of sq threads.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:15:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 1/10/24 2:05 AM, Xiaobing Li wrote:
> On 1/5/24 04:02 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 1/3/24 05:49, Xiaobing Li wrote:
>>> On 12/30/23 9:27 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Why it uses jiffies instead of some task run time?
>>>> Consequently, why it's fine to account irq time and other
>>>> preemption? (hint, it's not)
>>>>
>>>> Why it can't be done with userspace and/or bpf? Why
>>>> can't it be estimated by checking and tracking
>>>> IORING_SQ_NEED_WAKEUP in userspace?
>>>>
>>>> What's the use case in particular? Considering that
>>>> one of the previous revisions was uapi-less, something
>>>> is really fishy here. Again, it's a procfs file nobody
>>>> but a few would want to parse to use the feature.
>>>>
>>>> Why it just keeps aggregating stats for the whole
>>>> life time of the ring? If the workload changes,
>>>> that would either totally screw the stats or would make
>>>> it too inert to be useful. That's especially relevant
>>>> for long running (days) processes. There should be a
>>>> way to reset it so it starts counting anew.
>>>
>>> Hi, Jens and Pavel,
>>> I carefully read the questions you raised.
>>> First of all, as to why I use jiffies to statistics time, it
>>> is because I have done some performance tests and found that
>>> using jiffies has a relatively smaller loss of performance
>>> than using task run time. Of course, using task run time is
>>
>> How does taking a measure for task runtime looks like? I expect it to
>> be a simple read of a variable inside task_struct, maybe with READ_ONCE,
>> in which case the overhead shouldn't be realistically measurable. Does
>> it need locking?
> 
> The task runtime I am talking about is similar to this:
> start = get_system_time(current);
> do_io_part();
> sq->total_time += get_system_time(current) - start;

Not sure what get_system_time() is, don't see that anywhere.

> Currently, it is not possible to obtain the execution time of a piece of 
> code by a simple read of a variable inside task_struct. 
> Or do you have any good ideas?

I must be missing something, because it seems like all you need is to
read task->stime? You could possible even make do with just logging busy
loop time, as getrusage(RUSAGE_THREAD, &stat) from userspace would then
give you the total time.

stat.ru_stime would then be the total time, the thread ran, and
1 - (above_busy_stime / stat.ru_stime) would give you the time the
percentage of time the thread ran and did useful work (eg not busy
looping.

Hmm?

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-10 16:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CGME20231225055252epcas5p43ae8016d329b160f688def7b4f9d4ddb@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
2023-12-25  5:44 ` [PATCH v6] io_uring: Statistics of the true utilization of sq threads Xiaobing Li
2023-12-26 16:32   ` Jens Axboe
2023-12-30 16:27     ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-12-30 17:41       ` Jens Axboe
2023-12-30 21:06         ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-12-30 22:17           ` Jens Axboe
2023-12-30 23:17             ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-12-30 23:24               ` Jens Axboe
     [not found]       ` <CGME20240103055746epcas5p148c2b06032e09956ddcfc72894abc82a@epcas5p1.samsung.com>
2024-01-03  5:49         ` Xiaobing Li
2024-01-05  4:02           ` Pavel Begunkov
     [not found]             ` <CGME20240110091327epcas5p493e0d77a122a067b6cd41ecbf92bd6eb@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
2024-01-10  9:05               ` Xiaobing Li
2024-01-10 16:15                 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
     [not found]                   ` <CGME20240112012013epcas5p38c70493069fb14da02befcf25e604bc1@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
2024-01-12  1:12                     ` Xiaobing Li
2024-01-12  2:58                       ` Jens Axboe
     [not found]                         ` <CGME20240117084516epcas5p2f0961781ff761ac3a3794c5ea80df45f@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2024-01-17  8:37                           ` Xiaobing Li
2024-01-17 23:04                             ` Jens Axboe
     [not found]                               ` <CGME20240118023341epcas5p37b8c206d763fd56f8a9cfb3193744124@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
2024-01-18  2:25                                 ` Xiaobing Li
2024-01-18  2:56                             ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-01-11 13:12                 ` Pavel Begunkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox