[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150512153630.GA27864@lerouge>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 17:36:31 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_ISOLATION=y (was: [PATCH 0/6] support "dataplane" mode
for nohz_full)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:34:40PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > So I'd vote for Frederic's CONFIG_ISOLATION=y, mostly because this
> > > is a high level kernel feature, so it won't conflict with
> > > isolation concepts in lower level subsystems such as IOMMU
> > > isolation - and other higher level features like scheduler
> > > isolation are basically another partial implementation we want to
> > > merge with all this...
> >
> > But why do we need a CONFIG flag for something that has no content?
> >
> > That is, I do not see anything much; except the 'I want to stay in
> > userspace and kill me otherwise' flag, and I'm not sure that
> > warrants a CONFIG flag like this.
> >
> > Other than that, its all a combination of NOHZ_FULL and
> > cpusets/isolcpus and whatnot.
>
> Yes, that's what I meant: CONFIG_ISOLATION would trigger what is
> NO_HZ_FULL today - we could possibly even remove CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL as
> an individual Kconfig option?
Right, we could return to what we had previously: CONFIG_NO_HZ. A config
that enables dynticks-idle by default and allows full dynticks if nohz_full=
boot option is passed (or something driven by higher level isolation interface).
Because eventually, distros enable NO_HZ_FULL so that their 0.0001% users
can use it. Well at least Red Hat does.
>
> CONFIG_ISOLATION=y would express the guarantee from the kernel that
> it's possible for user-space to configure itself to run undisturbed -
> instead of the current inconsistent set of options and facilities.
>
> A bit like CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is more than just preemptable spinlocks,
> it also tries to offer various facilities and tune the defaults to
> turn the kernel hard-rt.
>
> Does that make sense to you?
Right although distros tend to want features to be enabled dynamically
so that they have a single kernel to maintain. Things like PREEMPT_RT
really need to be a different kernel because fundamental primitives like
spinlocks must be implemented statically.
But isolation can be a boot-enabled, or even runtime-enabled, as it's only
about timer,irq,task affinity. Full Nohz is more complicated but it can
be runtime toggled in the future.
So we can bring CONFIG_CPU_ISOLATION, at least for distros that are really
not interested in that so they can disable it. CONFIG_CPU_ISOLATION=y would
bring an ability which is default-disabled and driven dynamically through whatever
interface.
--
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