[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151012162001.GA32228@lerouge>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:20:03 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 08:32:02AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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".
Well it is already. As you pass nohz_full=1-32, you can pass as well isolcpus=1-32
--
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