Bug 789345

Summary: [RFE] New statistical counters representing work units instead of time units
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Jaromír Cápík <jcapik>
Component: kernelAssignee: Larry Woodman <lwoodman>
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED QA Contact: Evan McNabb <emcnabb>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 6.2CC: aquini, fhirtz, filipe.brandenburger, mwhitehe, ovasik, thomas.walker, wgomerin
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: 6.2   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1253283 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-10-14 14:34:14 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1253283, 1270638    

Description Jaromír Cápík 2012-02-10 14:26:59 UTC
Description of problem:
I'm a member of the procps devel group and we're facing the following issue. It isn't easy to make it clear since we had to internally exchange many emails to avoid confusions.

With introduction of dynamic frequency scaling (cpu throttling) our procps statistics became distorted by the automatic CPU frequency changes (which usually happen several times per sampling interval and thus can't be reliably measured). The main problem lies in the /proc/stat counters. They represent time units (hundreths of seconds) "consumed" by the processes (or time units spent in the idle state) whilst we need to know how many work units (or cpu ticks) were consumed by the task to make the stats frequency independent. Time units can be reliably used in case of CPUs with fixed frequencies, but in case of dynamic frequency scaling these values become useless, because they can't reliably tell us how many reserves we actually have and thus they can't be used for monitoring platforms.
We'd like to know if it's easily possible to measure and export also work units. Maybe the time units are internally evaluated using the work units?

In order to explain the impact I've created a testing application producing a fixed amount of work units each second and then forced CPU to stay at the following fixed frequencies...

The procps results were:
f[GHz]  load[%]
 2.66       34
 1.73       52

whilst in fact the real load is 34% in both cases, but this is distorted by the scaling and the load then looks higher.

The following table shows differences in /proc/stat counters between two subsequent samples (interval 1.0s)

Results (all 4 cores - first /proc/stat line):
f[GHz]  user[]  idle[]  total[]
 1.73     218     180      398
 2.66     142     257      399

Results (first core - second /proc/stat line):
f[GHz]  user[]  idle[]  total[]
 1.73      55      43       98
 2.66      37      63      100

We don't want to break a backward compatibility and thus we don't want to change behaviour or the current counters. We want an introduction of new counters which could be used for frequency independent statistics. Additionally, if You could export a theoretical maximum number of work units which can be processed by a CPU core running at it's maximum frequency, then it would be really great. Such value is constant and could be used for evaluation of the load in percentage. We encourage any reasonable unit prefixes to make the increments not too high and not too low. They could be eventually prescaled to always have any reasonable range.

Please, do not hesitate to ask if anything isn't clear.

Regards,
Jaromir.

Comment 2 RHEL Program Management 2012-05-03 04:49:50 UTC
Since RHEL 6.3 External Beta has begun, and this bug remains
unresolved, it has been rejected as it is not proposed as
exception or blocker.

Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the
next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 3 RHEL Program Management 2012-07-10 06:37:58 UTC
This request was not resolved in time for the current release.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in
the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 4 RHEL Program Management 2012-07-10 23:33:04 UTC
This request was erroneously removed from consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4, which is currently under development.  This request will be evaluated for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4.

Comment 5 RHEL Program Management 2012-12-14 07:09:54 UTC
This request was not resolved in time for the current release.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in
the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 6 Jaromír Cápík 2014-11-24 19:27:00 UTC
Hello. Any news here?

Comment 7 Larry Woodman 2015-10-14 14:34:14 UTC
This change can not be made to RHEL6, please upgrade to RHEL7 if you need this.

Larry