On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:05:08PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > 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 f
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if it's wouldn't be rather reasonable to affine housekeeping to
> > all non-nohz-full CPUs
> > by default and then people who want finergrained housekeeping can affine
> > manually kthreads from userspace.
> >
> > That implies to bind
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:45:05PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:35:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 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,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:35:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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 tha
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
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:05:08PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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 latenc
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:43:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:26:14PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:08:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:57:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Fri, J
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:26:14PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:08:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:57:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:45:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, J
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:08:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:57:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:45:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:25:43PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Fri, J
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 r
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:57:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:45:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:25:43PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:10:41PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > On Tue,
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.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:45:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:25:43PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:10:41PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I was figuring that a
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:25:43PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:10:41PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > > I was figuring that a fair number of the kthreads might eventually
> > > > be using this, not jus
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:10:41PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > I was figuring that a fair number of the kthreads might eventually
> > > be using this, not just for the grace-period kthreads.
> >
> > Ok makes sense. But can we just rename
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:10:41PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > I was figuring that a fair number of the kthreads might eventually
> > > be using this, not just for the grace-period kthreads.
> >
> > Ok makes sense. But can we just rename
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I was figuring that a fair number of the kthreads might eventually
> > be using this, not just for the grace-period kthreads.
>
> Ok makes sense. But can we just rename the cpumask to housekeeping_mask?
That would imply that all no-nohz processor
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:05:56PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Fair point. This would be a kthread_bind_housekeeping(), then.
Hmm, after all this should only be needed for kthreads so yeah.
> But I need to create an kthread_bind_mask() or some such that acts like
> kthread_bind(), but which
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:58:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:38:47PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:47:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, J
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:58:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:38:47PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:47:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:24:00PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Mon, J
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:38:47PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:47:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:24:00PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:38:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > From: "Pa
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:47:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:24:00PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:38:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> > >
> > > Binding the grace-period kthreads to the timeke
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:24:00PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:38:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> >
> > Binding the grace-period kthreads to the timekeeping CPU resulted in
> > significant performance decreases for some workloa
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:38:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney"
>
> Binding the grace-period kthreads to the timekeeping CPU resulted in
> significant performance decreases for some workloads. For more detail,
> see:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/3/395 for benchm
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
Binding the grace-period kthreads to the timekeeping CPU resulted in
significant performance decreases for some workloads. For more detail,
see:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/3/395 for benchmark numbers
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/4/218 for CPU statistics
It turns out
25 matches
Mail list logo