[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6e48babd-bcaf-dfc8-2126-2b6c146af0aa@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:15:28 -0400
From: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
sassmann@...hat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
jacob.e.keller@...el.com, jlelli@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, mike.marciniszyn@...el.com,
dennis.dalessandro@...el.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
jerinj@...vell.com, mathias.nyman@...el.com, jiri@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch v1 1/3] sched/isolation: API to get num of
hosekeeping CPUs
On 9/22/20 4:58 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:50:55AM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 9/22/20 6:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> TBH I don't have a very strong case here at the moment.
>> But still, IMHO, this will force the user to have both managed irqs and
>> nohz_full in their environments to avoid these kinds of issues. Is that how
>> we would like to proceed?
> Yep that sounds good to me. I never know how much we want to split each and any
> of the isolation features but I'd rather stay cautious to separate HK_FLAG_TICK
> from the rest, just in case running in nohz_full mode ever becomes interesting
> alone for performance and not just latency/isolation.
Fair point.
>
> But look what you can do as well:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/isolation.c b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> index 5a6ea03f9882..9df9598a9e39 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static int __init housekeeping_nohz_full_setup(char *str)
> unsigned int flags;
>
> flags = HK_FLAG_TICK | HK_FLAG_WQ | HK_FLAG_TIMER | HK_FLAG_RCU |
> - HK_FLAG_MISC | HK_FLAG_KTHREAD;
> + HK_FLAG_MISC | HK_FLAG_KTHREAD | HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ;
>
> return housekeeping_setup(str, flags);
> }
>
>
> "nohz_full=" has historically gathered most wanted isolation features. It can
> as well isolate managed irqs.
Nice, yeap this will work.
>
>
>>> And then can we rename it to housekeeping_num_online()?
>> It could be just me, but does something like hk_num_online_cpus() makes more
>> sense here?
> Sure, that works as well.
Thanks a lot for all the help.
>
> Thanks.
>
--
Nitesh
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists