[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220504093230.xmksdyagcpgs7sjt@ava.usersys.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 10:32:30 +0100
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: frederic@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, pauld@...hat.com,
neelx@...hat.com, oleksandr@...alenko.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] tick/sched: Ensure quiet_vmstat() is called when
the idle tick was stopped too
On Thu 2022-04-28 15:10 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> So you are syncing the vmstats on every system call return:
Hi Marcelo,
Sorry about the delay!
No - indeed, that would be too expensive. If I understand correctly,
Peter Zijlstra's feedback was in response to a previous suggestion made:
"Could we *always* fold the vmstat counters when entering
idle mode? ..."
I think an exception should be made for the adaptive-tick mode/or a
nohz_full CPU case when the scheduling-clock tick is stopped. Also, I feel
correctness is key, as previously indicated since a significant divergence
can impact memory reclaim code.
> Have you measured performance of any system call heavy application
> with this change?
Unfortunately not. That being said, the aforementioned test and work will
only take place under a nohz_full CPU and if the tick is stopped.
So this should be somewhat limited, no?
> Then the comment on why its so slow:
>
> "This loop is quite heavy. Maybe reducing the data necessary to be read
> to a couple of cachelines would improve it considerably."
>
> The comment:
>
> "Is there anything that prevents a nohz full CPU from running an
> application with short and frequent idling?"
>
> Is confusing and can be ignored.
Understood.
Kind regards,
--
Aaron Tomlin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists