[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510011613090.4500@nanos>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:13:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully
disabled
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:40:56PM -0400, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com> wrote:
> > > While the current fallback to 1-second tick is still helpful for
> > > maintaining completely correct kernel semantics, processes using
> > > prctl(PR_SET_TASK_ISOLATION) semantics place a higher priority on
> > > running completely tickless, so don't bound the time_delta for such
> > > processes. In addition, due to the way such processes quiesce by
> > > waiting for the timer tick to stop prior to returning to userspace,
> > > without this commit it won't be possible to use the task_isolation
> > > mode at all.
> > >
> > > Removing the 1-second cap was previously discussed (see link
> > > below) and Thomas Gleixner observed that vruntime, load balancing
> > > data, load accounting, and other things might be impacted.
> > > Frederic Weisbecker similarly observed that allowing the tick to
> > > be indefinitely deferred just meant that no one would ever fix the
> > > underlying bugs. However it's at least true that the mode proposed
> > > in this patch can only be enabled on a nohz_full core by a process
> > > requesting task_isolation mode, which may limit how important it is
> > > to maintain scheduler data correctly, for example.
> >
> > What goes wrong when a task enables this? Presumably either tasks
> > that enable it experience problems or performance issues or it should
> > always be enabled.
>
> We need to make the scheduler resilient to 0Hz tick. Currently it doesn't
> even correctly support 1Hz or any dynticks behaviour that isn't idle.
Rik has started to work on this. No idea what the status of that is.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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