[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170811150129.GB25912@lerouge>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:01:30 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Introduce housekeeping subsystem
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:36:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
> > > Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the point
> > > that its default behaviour will be the exact opposite of the current one: by default
> > > every CPU is housekeeping, so NO_HZ_FULL_ALL would have no effect anymore if we
> > > don't set housekeeping boot option.
> >
> > Maybe a CONFIG_HOUSEKEEPING_BOOT_ONLY as a way to restrict housekeeping
> > by default to just the boot cpu. In conjunction with NOHZ_FULL_ALL you would
> > then get the expected semantics.
>
> A big box with only the boot cpu for housekeeping is likely screwed.
Indeed we probably shouldn't introduce new config that affine housekeeping to a
single CPU.
> Personally, I think NOHZ_FULL_ALL should just die.
Yeah, although it's still useful for automatic boot testing to detect issues
with nohz_full on.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists