On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 12:34:11PM -0800, Daniel Jordan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 09:49:11AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:46AM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > > +Concept > > > +======= > > > + > > > +ktask is built on unbound workqueues to take advantage of the thread > > > management > > > +facilities it provides: creation, destruction, flushing, priority > > > setting, and > > > +NUMA affinity. > > > + > > > +A little terminology up front: A 'task' is the total work there is to > > > do and a > > > +'chunk' is a unit of work given to a thread. > > > > So I hate on the task naming. We already have a task, lets not overload > > that name. > > Ok, agreed, it's a crowded field with 'task', 'work', 'thread'... > > Maybe 'job', since nothing seems to have taken that in kernel/.
Do we want to somehow convey the fundamentally parallel nature of the thing? > > I see no mention of padata anywhere; I also don't see mention of the > > async init stuff. Both appear to me to share, at least in part, the same > > reason for existence. > > padata is news to me. From reading its doc, it comes with some special > requirements of its own, like softirqs disabled during the parallel callback, > and some ktask users need to sleep. I'll check whether it could be reworked > to > handle this. Right, padata is something that came from the network stack I think. It's a bit of an odd thing, but it would be nice if we can fold it into something larger. > And yes, async shares the same basic infrastructure, but ktask callers need to > wait, so the two seem fundamentally at odds. I'll add this explanation in. Why does ktask have to be fundamentally async? > > > +Scheduler Interaction > > > +===================== > ... > > > +It is possible for a helper thread to start running and then be forced > > > off-CPU > > > +by a higher priority thread. With the helper's CPU time curtailed by > > > MAX_NICE, > > > +the main thread may wait longer for the task to finish than it would > > > have had > > > +it not started any helpers, so to ensure forward progress at a > > > single-threaded > > > +pace, once the main thread is finished with all outstanding work in the > > > task, > > > +the main thread wills its priority to one helper thread at a time. At > > > least > > > +one thread will then always be running at the priority of the calling > > > thread. > > > > What isn't clear is if this calling thread is waiting or not. Only do > > this inheritance trick if it is actually waiting on the work. If it is > > not, nobody cares. > > The calling thread waits. Even if it didn't though, the inheritance trick > would still be desirable for timely completion of the job. No, if nobody is waiting on it, it really doesn't matter. > > > +Power Management > > > +================ > > > + > > > +Starting additional helper threads may cause the system to consume more > > > energy, > > > +which is undesirable on energy-conscious devices. Therefore ktask needs > > > to be > > > +aware of cpufreq policies and scaling governors. > > > + > > > +If an energy-conscious policy is in use (e.g. powersave, conservative) > > > on any > > > +part of the system, that is a signal that the user has strong power > > > management > > > +preferences, in which case ktask is disabled. > > > + > > > +TODO: Implement this. > > > > No, don't do that, its broken. Also, we're trying to move to a single > > cpufreq governor for all. > > > > Sure we'll retain 'performance', but powersave and conservative and all > > that nonsense should go away eventually. > > Ok, good to know. > > > That's not saying you don't need a knob for this; but don't look at > > cpufreq for this. > > Ok, I'll dig through power management to see what else is there. Maybe > there's > some way to ask "is this machine energy conscious?" IIRC you're presenting at LPC, drop by the Power Management and Energy-awareness MC.
