[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7820672.sYOlvzebIZ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:15:45 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Francis Giraldeau <francis.giraldeau@...il.com>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"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>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Ping: [PATCH v15 00/13] support "task_isolation" mode
On Monday, September 12, 2016 06:14:44 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> > >When running only the test_jitter(), the isolation mode is lost:
> > >
> > > [ 6741.566048] isolation/9515: task_isolation mode lost due to irq_work
> > >
> > >With ftrace (events/workqueue/workqueue_execute_start), I get a bit more info:
> > >
> > > kworker/1:1-676 [001] .... 6610.097128: workqueue_execute_start: work struct ffff8801a784ca20: function dbs_work_handler
> > >
> > >The governor was ondemand, so I tried to set the frequency scaling
> > >governor to performance, but that does not solve the issue. Is there
> > >a way to suppress this irq_work? Should we run the isolated task with
> > >high real-time priority, such that it never get preempted?
> >
> > On the tile platform we don't have the frequency scaling stuff to contend with, so
> > I don't know much about it. I'd be very curious to know what you can figure out
> > on this front.
>
> Rafael, I'm thinking the performance governor should be able to run
> without sending IPIs. Is there anything we can quickly do about that?
The performance governor doesn't do any IPIs.
At this point I'm not sure what's going on.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists