lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Parallelize and economize NOCB kthread wakeups
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 05:23:56AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 09:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:48:40AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 22:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:31:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > > NO_HZ_FULL is a property of a set of CPUs. isolcpus is supposed to go
> > > > > away as being a redundant interface to manage a single property of a set
> > > > > of CPUs, but it's perfectly fine for NO_HZ_FULL to add an interface to
> > > > > manage a single property of a set of CPUs. What am I missing?
> > > >
> > > > Well, for now, it can only be specified at build time or at boot time.
> > > > In theory, it is possible to change a CPU from being callback-offloaded
> > > > to not at runtime, but there would need to be an extremely good reason
> > > > for adding that level of complexity. Lots of "fun" races in there...
> > >
> > > Yeah, understood.
> > >
> > > (still it's a NO_HZ_FULL wart though IMHO, would be prettier and more
> > > usable if it eventually became unified with cpuset and learned how to
> > > tap-dance properly;)
> >
> > Agreed, it would in some sense be nice. What specifically do you need
> > it for?
>
> I personally have zero use for the thing (git/vi aren't particularly
> perturbation sensitive;). I'm just doing occasional drive-by testing
> from a distro perspective, how well does it work, what does it cost etc.
>
> > Are you really running workloads that generate large numbers of
> > callbacks spread across most of the CPUs? It was this sort of workload
> > that caused Rik's system to show scary CPU-time accumulation, due to
> > the high overhead of frequent one-to-many wakeups.
> >
> > If your systems aren't running that kind of high-callback-rate workload,
> > just set CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y and don't worry about it.
> >
> > If your systems -are- running that kind of high-callback-rate workload,
> > but your system has fewer than 200 CPUs, ensure that you have enough
> > housekeeping CPUs to allow the grace-period kthread sufficient CPU time,
> > set CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y and don't worry about it.
> >
> > If your systems -are- running that kind of high-callback-rate workload,
> > and your system has more than 200 CPUs, apply the following patch,
> > set CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y and once again don't worry about it. ;-)
>
> Turn it on and don't worry about it is exactly what distros want the
> obscure feature with very few users to be. Last time I did a drive-by,
> my boxen said I should continue to worry about it ;-)

Yep, which is the reason for the patch on the last email.

Then again, exactly which feature and which reason for worry?

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-04 07:21    [W:0.082 / U:3.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site