[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151012153202.GB3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:32:02 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Revert "nohz: Set isolcpus when nohz_full is set"
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 05:21:23PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> This reverts commit 8cb9764fc88b41db11f251e8b2a0d006578b7eb4.
>
> We assumed that nohz full users always want scheduler isolation on full
> dynticks CPUs, therefore we included nohz full CPUs on cpu_isolated_map.
> This means that tasks run by default on CPUs outside the nohz_full range
> unless their affinity is explicity overwritten.
>
> This suits pure isolation workloads but when the machine is needed to
> run common workloads, the available sets of CPUs to run common tasks
> becomes reduced.
>
> We reach an extreme case when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL is enabled as it
> leaves only CPU 0 for non-isolation tasks, which makes people think that
> their supercomputer regressed to 90's UP.
>
> Some nohz full users appear to be interested in running normal workloads
> either before or after an isolation workload. Nohz full isn't optimized
> toward normal workloads but it's still better than UP performance.
>
> We are reaching a limitation in kernel presets here. Lets revert this
> cpu_isolated_map inclusion and let userspace do its own scheduler
> isolation using cpusets or explicit affinity settings.
>
> Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
> Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 6159531..3c35b5f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -7238,9 +7238,6 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
> alloc_cpumask_var(&non_isolated_cpus, GFP_KERNEL);
> alloc_cpumask_var(&fallback_doms, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> - /* nohz_full won't take effect without isolating the cpus. */
> - tick_nohz_full_add_cpus_to(cpu_isolated_map);
> -
Why not make this controlled by a boot parameter? That preserves
the ease of use for those needing it, but avoids problems from people
doing "make randconfig".
Thanx, Paul
> sched_init_numa();
>
> /*
> --
> 2.5.3
>
--
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