[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240516175321.GN22557@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 19:53:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
anna-maria@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Markus.Elfring@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full
cpu becomes idle.
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 05:32:56PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 05:19:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yes, but stronger, as long as the CPU is part of a load-balance domain,
> > it must not disable the tick while running anything.
> >
> > that is, NOHZ_FULL must not become active unless it's running on a
> > single CPU partition.
>
> I like the idea but I'm afraid to introduce regressions while doing so,
> with people currently using nohz_full without proper partionning...
There is no regression, if this is possible today it is utterly broken.
This should never have been possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists