From: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Holger.Wolf@de.ibm.com, epasch@de.ibm.com,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot add/remove
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B0EAC06.3010407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1259252382.31676.207.camel@laptop>
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 17:10 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>
>> What I consider more important at the moment is that there is no hook to
>> recalculate these values in case cpu hot add/remove takes place.
>> As an example someone could boot a machine with one online cpu and get
>> the low non scaled defaults, later on driven by load the system
>> activates more and more processors. Therefore the system could end up
>> having a large amount of cpus with non recalculated scheduler tunables.
>>
>
> This is virt junk that's playing dumb games with hotplug isn't it?
>
Some sort of, its on s390 which does that all the time. By default there
is a daemon that activates/deactivates cpus according to load to cover
load peaks but also save virtualization overhead.
> Normal machines simply don't change their numbers of cpus, if they
> hotplug its usually for things like suspend or actual replacement of a
> faulty piece of kit, in which case there's little point in adjusting
> things.
>
>
What is still "normal" today, you cant get s390 without virt so I would
consider it normal and a real use case for us :-)
> Aside from that, we probably should put an upper limit in place, as I
> guess large cpu count machines get silly large values
I agree to that, but in the code is already an upper limit of
200.000.000 - well we might discuss if that is too low/high.
--
Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, Open Virtualization
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-26 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-26 16:10 Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot add/remove Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 16:25 ` Christian Ehrhardt [this message]
2009-11-26 16:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 16:31 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 16:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 18:39 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 18:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-03 9:12 ` Pavel Machek
2009-12-03 9:31 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B0EAC06.3010407@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Holger.Wolf@de.ibm.com \
--cc=epasch@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.