lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] sched/isolation: Add cpu_is_isolated() API
On Mon 27-03-23 07:24:54, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:35:35PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > > On Fri 17-03-23 15:35:05, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
[...]
> > > > Actually introducing cpu_is_isolated() seems fine, but it can call
> > > > housekeeping_test_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) AFAICS.
> > >
> > > This is not really my area. Frederic, could you have a look please?
> >
> > The point is to have a function that tells if either nohz_full= or
> > isolcpus=[domain] has been passed for the given CPU.
> >
> > Because I assumed that both would be interested in avoiding that flush
> > noise, wouldn't it be the case?
>
> Yes, that is the case. But as a note: for the two main types of
> configuration performed (one uses isolcpus=[domain] and the other
> cgroups, for isolating processes) nohz_full= is always set.
>
> So just testing for nohz_full= would be sufficient (which perhaps would
> make the code simpler).

I do not see any mention about that assumption under Documentation/. Is
this a best practice documented anywhere or it just happens to be the
case with workloads you deal with?

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-28 13:48    [W:0.254 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site