[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0cf37ac0-69c7-2da4-22a6-58e78dc35cef@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:40:01 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/7] cgroup/cpuset: Add a new isolated cpus.partition
type
On 1/12/22 10:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 01:32:17PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Cpuset v1 uses the sched_load_balance control file to determine if load
>> balancing should be enabled. Cpuset v2 gets rid of sched_load_balance
>> as its use may require disabling load balancing at cgroup root.
>>
>> For workloads that require very low latency like DPDK, the latency
>> jitters caused by periodic load balancing may exceed the desired
>> latency limit.
>>
>> When cpuset v2 is in use, the only way to avoid this latency cost is to
>> use the "isolcpus=" kernel boot option to isolate a set of CPUs. After
>> the kernel boot, however, there is no way to add or remove CPUs from
>> this isolated set. For workloads that are more dynamic in nature, that
>> means users have to provision enough CPUs for the worst case situation
>> resulting in excess idle CPUs.
>>
>> To address this issue for cpuset v2, a new cpuset.cpus.partition type
>> "isolated" is added which allows the creation of a cpuset partition
>> without load balancing. This will allow system administrators to
>> dynamically adjust the size of isolated partition to the current need
>> of the workload without rebooting the system.
> you can, ofcourse, create lots of 1 cpu partitions, which is effectively
> what you're doing, except there was a problem with that which you also
> forgot to mention.
Yes, that is a possible workaround. However, it makes cgroup management
much harder especially in the cgroup v2 environment where multiple
controllers are likely to be enabled in the same cgroup.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists