From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751680AbbFYMMZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:12:25 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:36906 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751812AbbFYMMQ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:12:16 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:12:11 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        ricklind@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc/schedstat: Expose /proc/<pid>/schedstat if delay
 accounting is enabled
Message-ID: <20150625121211.GA32148@gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCnzm5A6n=jvskHqUmpdq7yynzKqwuVFJL-ia=3PmgDeBV-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150529061620.GA17421@naverao1-tp.ibm.com>
 <20150529080424.GA27235@gmail.com>
 <20150529085504.GD17421@naverao1-tp.ibm.com>
 <20150529091837.GA30451@gmail.com>
 <20150529094547.GE17421@naverao1-tp.ibm.com>
 <20150529095435.GA30949@gmail.com>
 <20150529170600.GF17421@naverao1-tp.ibm.com>
 <20150602075825.GA12057@gmail.com>
 <20150625083840.GB3075@naverao1-tp.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150625083840.GB3075@naverao1-tp.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 2015/06/02 09:58AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2015/05/29 11:54AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On a related note, even though sum_exec_runtime is available 
> > > > > unconditionally, I dump all zeroes in my patch if 
> > > > > !sched_info_on() to make it clear that some of the fields are 
> > > > > not available. Is this ok or should be display sum_exec_runtime 
> > > > > regardless of sched_info?
> > > > 
> > > > So I'd suggest printing -1 for non-available fields, that should be unambigous 
> > > > enough and makes it also possible to write out 0 in some cases.
> > > 
> > > Per Documentation/scheduler/sched-stats.txt (and the linked latency.c there), 
> > > user-space seems to be expecting unsigned values here. Would displaying -1 here 
> > > be ok?
> > 
> > Probably not (the code is silly, why doesn't it split up the string and use 
> > atol()?) - hopefully real user-space is better? Can you try some real, packaged up 
> > tools that read schedstats, to see whether they work with -1?
> 
> Hi Ingo,
> Sorry for the delay - I had been off on vacation.
> 
> I see that quite a few packages are using /proc/<pid>/schedstat - pcp, systemd, 
> dstat, android, among others. While most of these seem to be splitting up the 
> fields properly, they are using a variant of strtoull(), which returns 
> ULLONG_MAX for -1, and none of these check for that condition. If any of the 
> tools use the value read to report total execution time or run delay, it will be 
> incorrect.
> 
> At this point, I feel it is better to display all the three fields in schedstat 
> only if sched_info_on() is true, as explained above. What do you suggest?

Ok, agreed - thanks for the analysis.

Mind (re-)submitting the patches accordingly?

Thanks,

	Ingo