[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1400174841.18229.6.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 19:27:21 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: don't try to balance rt_runtime when it is
futile
On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 07:45 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:18:51AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > In practice, not sure how much testing CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y has received
> > > for -rt kernels in production environments.
> >
> > I took 3.14-rt out for a quick spin on my 64 core box, it didn't work at
> > all with 60 cores isolated. I didn't have time to rummage, but it looks
> > like there are still bugs to squash.
> >
> > Biggest problem with CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is the price tag. It just raped
> > fast mover performance last time I measured.
>
> I do have a report of the RCU grace-period kthreads (rcu_preempt,
> rcu_sched, and rcu_bh) consuming excessive CPU time on large boxes,
> but this is for workloads with lots of threads and context switches.
>
> Whether relevant or not to your situation, working on it...
RCU signal was swamped by accounting.
-Mike
--
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