[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1328671335.2482.72.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:22:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: paul@...lmenage.org, mingo@...e.hu, rjw@...k.pl, tj@...nel.org,
frank.rowand@...sony.com, pjt@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix CPU online handling
related to cpusets
On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 00:25 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> There is a very long standing issue related to how cpusets handle CPU
> hotplug events. The problem is that when a CPU goes offline, it is removed
> from all cpusets. However, when that CPU comes back online, it is added
> *only* to the root cpuset. Which means, any task attached to a cpuset lower
> in the hierarchy will have one CPU less in its cpuset, though it had this
> CPU in its cpuset before the CPU went offline.
Yeah so? That's known behaviour..
> The issue gets enormously aggravated in the case of suspend/resume.
Why does suspend resume does this anyway? hotunplug is terribly
expensive, surely not doing it would make suspend ever so much faster?
> During
> suspend, all non-boot CPUs are taken offline. Which means, all those CPUs
> get removed from all the cpusets. When the system resumes, all CPUs are
> brought back online; however, the newly onlined CPUs get added only to the
> root cpuset - and all other cpusets have cpuset.cpus = 0 (boot cpu alone)!
> This means, (as is obvious), all those tasks attached to non-root cpusets
> will be constrained to run only on one single cpu!
>
> So, imagine the amount of performance degradation after suspend/resume!!
>
> In particular, libvirt is one of the active users of cpusets. And apparently,
> people hit this problem long ago:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714271
>
> But unfortunately this never got resolved since people probably thought that
> the bug was in libvirt... and all this time the kernel was the culprit!
/me boggles, why do you use cpusets on a system small enough to suspend,
and I'm so not going to ask about libvirt because I know I'll just get
sad.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists