linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: move SRCU grace period work to power efficient workqueue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:55:16 -0800
From:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shaibal Dutta <shaibal.dutta@...adcom.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: move SRCU grace period work to power efficient workqueue

Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de> writes:

> On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 08:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> So if there is NO_HZ_FULL, you have no objection to binding workqueues to
>> the timekeeping CPUs, but that you would also like some form of automatic
>> binding in the !NO_HZ_FULL case.  Of course, if a common mechanism could
>> serve both cases, that would be good.  And yes, cpusets are frowned upon
>> for some workloads.
>
> I'm not _objecting_, I'm not driving, Frederic's doing that ;-)
>
> That said, isolation seems to be turning into a property of nohz mode,
> but as I see it, nohz_full is an extension to generic isolation.
>
>> So maybe start with Kevin's patch, but augment with something else for
>> the !NO_HZ_FULL case?
>
> Sure (hm, does it work without workqueue.disable_numa ?).

[ /me returns from vacation ]

Yes, since it happens for every alloc_workqueue_attrs()

> It just seems to me that tying it to sched domain construction would be
> a better fit.  That way, it doesn't matter what your isolation requiring
> load is, whether you run a gaggle of realtime tasks or one HPC task your
> business, the generic requirement is isolation, not tick mode.  For one
> HPC task per core, you want no tick, if you're running all SCHED_FIFO,
> maybe you want that too, depends on the impact of nohz_full mode.  All
> sensitive loads want the isolation, but they may not like the price.
>
> I personally like the cpuset way.  Being able to partition boxen on the
> fly makes them very flexible.  In a perfect world, you'd be able to
> quiesce and configure offloading and nohz_full on the fly too, and not
> end up with some hodgepodge like this needs boot option foo, that
> happens invisibly because of config option bar, the other thing you have
> to do manually.. and you get to eat 937 kthreads and tons of overhead on
> all CPUs if you want the ability to _maybe_ run a critical task or two.

Yeah, my patch only addresses the nohz_full case, but since there
doesn't seem to be any general agreemenet about the generic case, it
seems that exposing all unbound workqueues via WQ_SYSFS is the way to
go.  

Mike, looks like you may have started on that.  Did it get any further?

Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/