[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1407111403090.5070@gentwo.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:05:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to
non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > That would imply that all no-nohz processors are housekeeping? So all
> > processors with a tick are housekeeping?
>
> Well, now that I think about it again, I would really like to keep housekeeping
> to CPU 0 when nohz_full= is passed.
Yeah.
> > Could we make that set configurable? Ideally I'd like to have the ability
> > restrict the housekeeping to one processor.
>
> Ah, I'm curious about your usecase. But I think we can do that. And we should.
The use case is pretty straightforward because we are trying to keep as
much OS noise as possible off most processors. Processor 0 is the
sacrificial lamb that will be used for all OS processing and hopefully all
high latency operations will occur there. Processors 1-X have a tick but
we still try to keep latencies sane. And then there is X-Y where tick is
off.
--
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