lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] nohz/cpuset: Make a CPU stick with do_timer() duty in the presence of nohz cpusets
From
2012/11/20 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>:
> On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 17:27 -0700, Hakan Akkan wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I suggest to rather define a tunable timekeeping duty CPU affinity in
>> > a cpumask file at /sys/devices/system/cpu/timekeeping and a toggle at
>> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/timekeeping (like the online file). This
>> > way the user can decide whether adaptive nohz CPU can handle
>> > timekeeping or this must be forced to other CPUs in order to enforce
>> > isolation.
>>
>> Well, users want tickless CPUs because they don't want timekeeping
>> (or any other kernel activity for that matter) to run in there. So, I believe
>> having that "timekeeping affinity" stay in the regular CPUs is good enough.
>> Please let me know how users could utilize these control files to do anything
>> other than keeping the timekeeping out of adaptive nohz CPUs.
>
> I agree. If we already have some /sys cpumask that denotes which CPUs
> will be adaptive NO_HZ (or simply isolated) then just keep the tick from
> ever going on those CPUs. If all but one CPU is set for nohz, and that
> one CPU goes idle, it should still be the one doing the tick.

If you want isolation on your full dynticks CPU it's right. Now you
could have lower requirements, a different policy that rather enforce
energy saving.

But I realize we can integrate such granularity later if users request
it and take the behaviour you both describe as the default for now. So
let's take that direction.

Thanks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-20 03:21    [W:0.079 / U:2.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site