[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F32558D8-4ACB-483A-AB4C-F565003A02E7@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:05:28 -0500
From: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@...vell.com>,
Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
dave.dice@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance
into CNA
> On Jan 25, 2020, at 6:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:19:05PM -0500, Alex Kogan wrote:
>
>> Is there a lightweight way to identify such a “prioritized” thread?
>
> No; people might for instance care about tail latencies between their
> identically spec'ed worker tasks.
I would argue that those users need to tune/reduce the intra-node handoff
threshold for their needs. Or disable CNA altogether.
In general, Peter, seems like you are not on board with the way Longman
suggested to handle prioritized threads. Am I right?
Thanks,
— Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists