[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZSilDBknf2yqDKNB@fedora>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:01:48 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Andrew Theurer <atheurer@...hat.com>,
Joe Mario <jmario@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Jug <sejug@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: add module parameter to not run block kworker on
isolated CPUs
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:55:55AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:39:05AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > I appreciate that any specific suggestions about dealing with isolated CPUs
> > generically for bound WQ can be shared.
>
> Oh, all I meant was whether we can at least collect this into or at least
> adjacent to the existing housekeeping / isolcpu parameters. Let's say
> there's someone who really wants to isolated some CPUs, how would they find
> out the different parameters if they're scattered across different
> subsystems?
AFAIK, the issue is reported on RH Openshift environment and it is real use
case, some of CPUs are isolated for some dedicated tasks(such as network polling,
...) by passing "isolcpus=managed_irq nohz_full".
But blk-mq still queue kworker on these isolated CPUs, and cause very long
latency in nvme IO workloads. Joe should know the story much more then me.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists