25.04.2014, 19:11, "Peter Zijlstra" :
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:02:16PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
>> Hm. What I really want (and try to implement), is
>> "work as if ht is disabled if there are free physical cores, start using ht
>> siblings otherwise".
>
> At which point I have to ask,
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:02:16PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Of course, there is always a trade-off between latency and performance
> utilization,
> but the common practice here is to keep cpu load between 40% and 70%. So,
> there is
> fast always a free CPU thread, and a good chance that th
25.04.2014, 17:16, "Peter Zijlstra" :
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:04:49PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
>> 24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" :
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:16:12PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
Are there any known solutions of this problem except disabling
hyper
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:02:16PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Hm. What I really want (and try to implement), is
> "work as if ht is disabled if there are free physical cores, start using ht
> siblings otherwise".
At which point I have to ask, what about the rest of the topology?
Also, how i
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:04:49PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" :
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:16:12PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> >> Are there any known solutions of this problem except disabling
> >> hyper-threading and frequency scaling at all?
>
25.04.2014, 00:16, "Kirill Tkhai" :
> 24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" :
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Does anyone use rt-scheduler for runtime-like cpu-bound tasks?
>> So in general cpu bound tasks in the RT classes (FIFO/RR/DEADLINE) are
>> bad and can make the system go funny.
>>
>> For general syste
24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" :
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:16:12PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
>> Are there any known solutions of this problem except disabling
>> hyper-threading and frequency scaling at all?
>
> This is what we generally tell people to do; disable HT in the BIOS,
> o
24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" :
[snip]
>> Does anyone use rt-scheduler for runtime-like cpu-bound tasks?
>
> So in general cpu bound tasks in the RT classes (FIFO/RR/DEADLINE) are
> bad and can make the system go funny.
>
> For general system health it is important that various system task
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:16:52AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" :
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Does anyone use rt-scheduler for runtime-like cpu-bound tasks?
> >
> > So in general cpu bound tasks in the RT classes (FIFO/RR/DEADLINE) are
> > bad and can make the system go
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:16:12PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Are there any known solutions of this problem except disabling
> hyper-threading and frequency scaling at all?
This is what we generally tell people to do; disable HT in the BIOS,
offline the siblings or similar approaches.
Similar
Hello!
I spend some time investigating why switching runtime* tasks to real-time
scheduling policies increases
response time dispersion, while the opposite is expected.
The main reason is hyper-threading. rt-scheduler tries only to load all logical
CPUs, selecting topologically
closest when th
11 matches
Mail list logo
