[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160120182503.GP6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:25:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched: Upload nohz full CPU load on task
enqueue/dequeue
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> You mean a periodic call to the above from the housekeepers?
>
> I didn't think about doing that because you nacked that approach with
> scheduler_tick(). This isn't much different.
This does _one_ thing, namely load accounting. scheduler_tick() does a
whole bunch of things, some which really do not make much sense to do
remotely.
> It means the housekeeper is entirely dedicated to full dynticks CPUs.
Depends on how many there are, and how many housekeepers. I would
suggest one housekeeper cpu per node or so to make sure this keeps
working.
Then again, these load values aren't super important, esp. not for the
nohz_full case where you typically don't care about load balancing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists