lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4
2017-09-29 15:34 GMT+02:00 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>:
> On 28/09/2017 11:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>
>> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ingo,
>>>
>>> Please pull the core/isolation-v4 branch that can be found at:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git
>>> core/isolation-v4
>>>
>>> HEAD: cf4c55aad44251369c8507c3823f9f9c51d4dc77
>>>
>>> Summary of changes:
>>>
>>> * Move the housekeeping code that was tied to NO_HZ to its own subsystem.
>>> Currently NO_HZ governs the other isolation features which is not
>>> right
>>> as dynticks is just an isolation feature like the others. We want to
>>> centralize the CPU isolation decisions to a subsystem of its own
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> * Integrate isolcpus code to housekeeping and treat it as a CPU isolation
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> * Reuse the "isolcpus=" kernel parameter to control the CPU isolation.
>>> For now only tick and domains can be isolated after this patchset:
>>>
>>> isolcpus=1-7 # isolate domains on CPU range 1 to 7
>>> # "domain" flag is implicit by default to
>>> # keep the current behaviour
>>> isolcpus=domain,1-7 # do the same
>>>
>>> isolcpus=nohz,1-7 # apply nohz_full to CPU range 1 to 7
>>>
>>> isolcpus=nohz,domain,1-7 # apply nohz_full and isolate domains
>>> of
>>> # CPU range 1 to 7
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Frederic
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Frederic Weisbecker (12):
>>> housekeeping: Move housekeeping related code to its own file
>>> watchdog: Use housekeeping_cpumask() instead of ad-hoc version
>>> housekeeping: Provide a dynamic off-case to housekeeping_any_cpu()
>>> housekeeping: Make housekeeping cpumask private
>>> housekeeping: Use its own static key
>>> housekeeping: Rename is_housekeeping_cpu to housekeeping_cpu
>>> housekeeping: Move it under its own config, independant from NO_HZ
>>> housekeeping: Introduce housekeeping flags
>>> housekeeping: Handle nohz_full= parameter
>>> housekeeping: Move isolcpus to housekeeping
>>> housekeeping: Add basic isolcpus flags
>>> housekeeping: Document isolcpus flags
>>>
>>>
>>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 33 +++---
>>> drivers/base/cpu.c | 11 +-
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/tile/tilegx.c | 6 +-
>>> include/linux/housekeeping.h | 51 ++++++++
>>> include/linux/sched.h | 2 -
>>> include/linux/tick.h | 39 +------
>>> init/Kconfig | 7 ++
>>> init/main.c | 2 +
>>> kernel/Makefile | 1 +
>>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 15 +--
>>> kernel/housekeeping.c | 149
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +-
>>> kernel/rcu/update.c | 3 +-
>>> kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +---
>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 +-
>>> kernel/sched/topology.c | 24 +---
>>> kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 31 +----
>>> kernel/watchdog.c | 13 +--
>>> 18 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 142 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Yeah, so while I agree that all this functionality needs to be factored
>> out and organized, I have a problem with this specific high level
>> organization.
>>
>> The main problem I think is that it's all called "housekeeping", which is
>> pretty
>> fuzzy and opaque. What does 'housekeeping' exactly mean? A dozen of
>> details if you
>> look at the code - and this name does not make it much easier to think
>> about this
>> whole problem category.
>
>
> Indeed I feel that housekeeping is probably not the best concept to express
> all these things. I'm all for something clearer.
>
>>
>> So how about introducing _two_ new high level concepts:
>>
>> 1) 'global time handling'
>> 2) 'double async CPU callbacks'
>>
>> The notion of 'global time' handling is obvious to everyone I think: it
>> involves
>> the system-global guarantee that certain kernel jobs will be executed
>> periodically. At least one CPU in the system needs to handle 'global
>> time'.
>>
>> The notion of 'double async CPU callbacks' is less obvious: it involves
>> the action
>> of invoking a callback on a CPU, that might be executed on _another_ CPU.
>>
>> I.e. there are 3 CPUs involved:
>>
>> - the invoking CPU
>> - the target CPU
>> - the CPU(s!) that will handle the callback (the housekeeping CPU
>> mask)
>>
>> For example the kmem-cache on_each_cpu() calls in mm/slab.c would fall
>> into this
>> category.
>
>
> Hmm, I'm not clear on this one. Do you mean works that can be executed
> concurrently?
>
>>
>> I don't know to what extent it makes sense to formalize and unify these
>> facilities: it's certain that the (former) housekeeping CPU mask should be
>> shared
>> by these two facilities: the CPU executing global time callbacks
>> periodically
>> should be one of the CPUs that execute double-async CPU callbacks.
>>
>> But by separating all this functionality into these two categories, it's
>> already
>> much easier to me to argue about which bit does what and why.
>
>
> Note that some housekeeping concepts may not fall into any of these
> categories. For example domain isolation.
>
> Thanks.

Hi Ingo,

Any detail to add about this housekeeping division?

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-15 17:53    [W:0.125 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site