Message-ID: <CAFTL4hybMf+9GjjyKRSEEp0x+wT7OwpKShE5sR_JqW24DGfKOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:46:32 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khilman@...aro.org, geoff@...radead.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz1: Documentation

2013/3/18 Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>:
> On 03/18/2013 11:29:42 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And really seems like it's kconfig help text?

It's more exhaustive than a Kconfig help. A Kconfig help text should
have the level of detail that describe the purpose and impact of a
feature, as well as some quick reference/pointer to the interface.

Deeper explanation which include implementation internals, finegrained
constraints, TODO list, detailed interface are better here.

>   The CONFIG_NO_HZ=y and CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y options cause the kernel
>   to (respectively) avoid sending scheduling-clock interrupts to idle
>   processors, or to processors with only a single single runnable task.
>   You can disable this at boot time with kernel parameter "nohz=off".
>
>   This reduces power consumption by allowing processors to suspend more
>   deeply for longer periods, and can also improve some computationally
>   intensive workloads. The downside is coming out of a deeper sleep can
>   reduce realtime response to wakeup events.
>
>   This is split into two config options because the second isn't quite
>   finished and won't reliably deliver posix timer interrupts, perf
>   events, or do as well on CPU load balancing. The CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ
>   option enables a workaround to force tick delivery every 4 jiffies to
>   handle RCU events. See the CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU option for a different
>   workaround.

I really think we want to keep all the detailed explanations from
Paul's doc. What we need is not a quick reference but a very detailed
documentation.

>
>> +1.     It increases the number of instructions executed on the path
>> +       to and from the idle loop.
>
>
> This detail didn't get mentioned in my summary.

And it's an important point.

>
>
>> +5.     The LB_BIAS scheduler feature is disabled by adaptive ticks.
>
>
> I have no idea what that one is, my summary didn't mention it.

Nobody seem to know what that thing is, except probably the scheduler
warlocks :o)
All I know is that it's hard to implement without the tick. So I
disabled it in my tree.

>> +o      Some sources of OS jitter can currently be eliminated only by
>> +       constraining the workload.  For example, the only way to eliminate
>> +       OS jitter due to global TLB shootdowns is to avoid the unmapping
>> +       operations (such as kernel module unload operations) that result
>> +       in these shootdowns.  For another example, page faults and TLB
>> +       misses can be reduced (and in some cases eliminated) by using
>> +       huge pages and by constraining the amount of memory used by the
>> +       application.
>
>
> If you want to write a doc on reducing system jitter, go for it. This is
> a topic transition near the end of a document.
>
>
>> +o      At least one CPU must keep the scheduling-clock interrupt going
>> +       in order to support accurate timekeeping.
>
>
> How? You never said how to tell a processor _not_ to suppress interrupts
> when CONFIG_THE_OTHER_HALF_OF_NOHZ is enabled.

Ah indeed it would be nice to point out that there must be an online
CPU outside the value range of the nohz_mask=  boot parameter.

> I take it the problem is the value in the sysenter page won't get updated,
> so gettimeofday() will see a stale value until the CPU hog stops
> suppressing interrupts? I thought the first half of NOHZ had a way of
> dealing with that many moons ago? (Did sysenter cause a regression?)

With CONFIG_NO_HZ, there is always a tick running that updates GTOD
and jiffies as long as there is non-idle CPU. If every CPUs are idle
and one suddenly wakes up, GTOD and jiffies values are caught up.

With full dynticks we have a new problem: there can be a CPU using
jiffies of GTOD without running the tick (we are not idle so there can
be such users). So there must a ticking CPU somewhere.

> Rob
--
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