[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o8hv7pnd.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:07:34 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip V3 0/8] workqueue: break affinity initiatively
On Fri, Jan 08 2021 at 12:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 10:51:08AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> 06249738a41a ("workqueue: Manually break affinity on hotplug")
>> said that scheduler will not force break affinity for us.
>
> So I've been looking at this the past day or so, and the more I look,
> the more I think commit:
>
> 1cf12e08bc4d ("sched/hotplug: Consolidate task migration on CPU unplug")
>
> is a real problem and we need to revert it (at least for now).
>
> Let me attempt a brain dump:
>
> - the assumption that per-cpu kernel threads are 'well behaved' on
> hot-plug has, I think, been proven incorrect, it's far worse than
> just bounded workqueue. Therefore, it makes sense to provide the old
> semantics.
I disagree. Per-cpu kernel threads which are magically stopped during
hotplug and then migrated to a random other CPU are just wrong.
We really need to fix that and not proliferate the sloppy and ill
defined behaviour.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists