On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:11:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:05:08PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yeah. > > > > > > 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. > > > > The use case is pretty straightforward because we are trying to keep as > > much OS noise as possible off most processors. Processor 0 is the > > sacrificial lamb that will be used for all OS processing and hopefully all > > high latency operations will occur there. Processors 1-X have a tick but > > we still try to keep latencies sane. And then there is X-Y where tick is > > off. > > Ok. I don't entirely get why you need 1-X but I can easily imagine some > non-latency-critical > stuff running there. > > Paul proposed "housekeeping=". If we ever go there, I'd rather vote for > "sacrifical_lamb="
Given Christoph's desire for only one housekeeping CPU, I guess the counting version makes the most sense, so that "housekeeping=N" designates the first N non-nohz CPUs in numerical order as housekeeping CPUs. If there are fewer than N non-nohz CPUs, you get a splat at boot time and your request is capped at the number of non-nohz CPUs. Seem reasonable? Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/