[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZHofbuFGrtuC/zRt@tpad>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 13:57:18 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] vmstat: skip periodic vmstat update for nohz full
CPUs
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 12:39:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-05-23 11:52:36, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > @@ -2022,6 +2023,16 @@ static void vmstat_shepherd(struct work_
> > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > struct delayed_work *dw = &per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Skip periodic updates for nohz full CPUs.
> > + * Any callers who need precise values should use
> > + * a snapshot of the per-CPU counters, or use the global
> > + * counters with measures to handle errors up to
> > + * thresholds (see calculate_normal_threshold).
> > + */
> > + if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu))
> > + continue;
>
> In other code path we have used cpu_is_isolated, is there any reason to
> diverge from that here? Isn't this effectivelly the same kind of
> problem?
Changed to cpu_is_isolated, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists