[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120215143710.GA10543@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:37:10 -0600
From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer_cpu value for nohz off mode
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 03:16:34PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> >
> > Allow manual override of the tick_do_timer_cpu.
> >
> > While not necessarily harmful, doing jiffies updates on an application cpu
> > does cause some extra overhead that HPC benchmarking people notice. They
> > prefer to have OS activity isolated to certain cpus. They like reproducibility
> > of results, and having jiffies updates bouncing around introduces variability.
>
> I really wonder about this changelog. The only case where jiffies
> updates bounces around is the NOHZ case. In all other modes (periodic
> or highres) the boot cpu gets the do_timer() duty and it's never
> assigned to any other cpu.
>
> So what's the point of this exercise? Moving it away from CPU0 for
> acedemic reasons or what?
>
I wasn't specifically trying to move it away from CPU0 (having jiffies updates
on CPU0 was and would be just fine for the nohz=off case). The issue was
that the tick_do_timer_cpu could be any cpu even in the nohz=off case (maybe
something has changed that since?). After the point of assignment it is
static, but you never know which cpu it is.
--
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