On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 15:36 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:15:48PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do
> > > this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too).
> >
> > I'm dead set against all this auto-presume nonsense fwtw Allocating a
> > pool of no_hz_full _capable_ CPUs should not entice the kernel to make
> > any rash assumptions. Let users do the button poking, they know what
> > they want, and when they want it.
>
> We need to make a choice then. Either we do all the affinity tuning from
> userspace with a common tool, which is what I had wished before everybody
> asked for pre-settings.
Giving userspace what they need to do what they want seems right to me.
> Or we do it in the kernel, now we should define some kind of CONFIG_ISOLATION
> to make that proper and rule the various kinds of isolation people are
> interested in.
>
> But we can't leave it half-way like it is currently with everything preset on
> top of nohz: rcu nocb mask, watchdog mask, cpu_isolation_map and exclude
> workqueue.
Yeah. Hell, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people really want this rigidity
and hand-holding by the kernel, but it just seems dainbramaged to me.
ATM, you pay a high price (the overhead) for the capability, but until
that auto-assume isolcpus landed, those CPUs weren't forever more
specialists, they were CPUs with an extra (costly) capability, could be
disconnected/reconnected to load balancing on the fly, and used however
the user saw fit.
I can imagine an auto-everything kernel having a bit of trouble with an
SGI beast from hell. Too bad I don't have access to one, I'd try to
boot a tune for maximum hand holding kernel.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
