Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:25:43 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs |
| |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:10:41PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > I was figuring that a fair number of the kthreads might eventually > > > be using this, not just for the grace-period kthreads. > > > > Ok makes sense. But can we just rename the cpumask to housekeeping_mask? > > That would imply that all no-nohz processors are housekeeping? So all > processors with a tick are housekeeping?
Well, now that I think about it again, I would really like to keep housekeeping to CPU 0 when nohz_full= is passed.
> > Could we make that set configurable? Ideally I'd like to have the ability > restrict the housekeeping to one processor.
Ah, I'm curious about your usecase. But I think we can do that. And we should.
In fact I think that Paul could keep affining grace period kthread to CPU 0 for the sole case when we have nohz_full= parameter passed.
I think the performance issues reported to him refer to CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y config without nohz_full= parameter passed. That's the most important to address.
Optimizing the "nohz_full= passed" case is probably not very useful and worse it complicate things a lot.
What do you think Paul? Can we simplify things that way? I'm pretty sure that nobody cares about optimizing the nohz_full= case. That would really simplify things to stick to CPU 0.
| |