linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] nohz: Affine unpinned timers to housekeepers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:38:09 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	"Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vatika Harlalka <vatikaharlalka@...il.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nohz: Affine unpinned timers to housekeepers

On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 22:47 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:14:13PM +0000, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index 8b864ec..0902e4d 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -623,18 +623,21 @@ int get_nohz_timer_target(void)
> > >  	int i, cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > >  	struct sched_domain *sd;
> > > 
> > > -	if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
> > > +	if (!idle_cpu(cpu) && is_housekeeping_cpu(cpu))
> > >  		return cpu;
> > > 
> > >  	rcu_read_lock();
> > >  	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> > >  		for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sd)) {
> > > -			if (!idle_cpu(i)) {
> > > +			if (!idle_cpu(i) && is_housekeeping_cpu(cpu)) {
> > 
> > Hi, Frederic, sorry for a naive question. Per my understanding, the tick_nohz_full_mask is added to cpu_isolated_map in
> > sched_init_smp(), and the cpu_isolated_map is excluded from sched_domain in init_sched_domains(), so why check here?
> 
> Very good observation! But it's better to keep this check in the domain loop in
> case things change in the future such as removing that cpu_isolated_map inclusion
> or other suprises.

IMHO, nohz_full -> cpu_isolated_map removal really wants to happen.
NO_HZ_FULL_ALL currently means "Woohoo, next stop NR_CPUS=0".

	-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/