From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, Alison Wang <alison.wang@nxp.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, leoyang.li@nxp.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
vladimir.oltean@nxp.com,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt.kanzenbach@linutronix.de>,
mw@semihalf.com, will@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Disable fine-grained task level IRQ time accounting
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 17:13:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d047n4oh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200803114112.mrcuupz4ir5uqlp6@skbuf>
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> writes:
>> 1) When irq accounting is disabled, RT throttling kicks in as
>> expected.
>>
>> 2) With irq accounting the RT throttler does not kick in and the RCU
>> stall/lockups happen.
>>
>> Not much, but there is clearly interaction between irq time accounting
>> and scheduler accounting.
>>
>> Can you please reduce /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us in steps of
>> 50000? At least in theory, reduction should bring the throttling back.
>
> We already know from my original report that reducing
> sched_rt_runtime_us to 80% (800000) gives us a stable system.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/4/1062
Oh. Somehow missed that. Btw, can you please use links in the form of:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/$MSGID
lkml.org is spotty and having the message id allows to search in the
mail client as well.
> What is this telling us?
It seems that the fine grained irq time accounting affects the runtime
accounting in some way which I haven't figured out yet.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt.kanzenbach@linutronix.de>,
Alison Wang <alison.wang@nxp.com>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org,
mw@semihalf.com, leoyang.li@nxp.com, vladimir.oltean@nxp.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Disable fine-grained task level IRQ time accounting
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 17:13:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d047n4oh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200803114112.mrcuupz4ir5uqlp6@skbuf>
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> writes:
>> 1) When irq accounting is disabled, RT throttling kicks in as
>> expected.
>>
>> 2) With irq accounting the RT throttler does not kick in and the RCU
>> stall/lockups happen.
>>
>> Not much, but there is clearly interaction between irq time accounting
>> and scheduler accounting.
>>
>> Can you please reduce /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us in steps of
>> 50000? At least in theory, reduction should bring the throttling back.
>
> We already know from my original report that reducing
> sched_rt_runtime_us to 80% (800000) gives us a stable system.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/4/1062
Oh. Somehow missed that. Btw, can you please use links in the form of:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/$MSGID
lkml.org is spotty and having the message id allows to search in the
mail client as well.
> What is this telling us?
It seems that the fine grained irq time accounting affects the runtime
accounting in some way which I haven't figured out yet.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-03 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-29 3:39 [RFC PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Disable fine-grained task level IRQ time accounting Alison Wang
2020-07-29 3:39 ` Alison Wang
2020-07-29 8:40 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2020-07-29 8:40 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2020-07-29 8:50 ` [EXT] " Alison Wang
2020-07-29 8:50 ` Alison Wang
2020-07-29 9:49 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-07-29 9:49 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-07-30 7:23 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2020-07-30 7:23 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2020-07-30 8:22 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-07-30 8:22 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 8:04 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2020-08-03 8:04 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2020-08-03 8:16 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 8:16 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 9:51 ` Robin Murphy
2020-08-03 9:51 ` Robin Murphy
2020-08-03 11:38 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 11:38 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 11:48 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-03 11:48 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-03 13:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-08-03 13:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-08-03 10:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-03 10:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-03 10:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-03 10:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-03 11:41 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 11:41 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 15:13 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2020-08-03 15:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-03 15:47 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-03 15:47 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-03 16:14 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 16:14 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-08-03 19:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-03 19:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-03 23:59 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-03 23:59 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-05 8:50 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-08-05 8:50 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-08-05 13:40 ` peterz
2020-08-05 13:40 ` peterz
2020-08-05 13:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-05 13:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-05 15:31 ` peterz
2020-08-05 15:31 ` peterz
2020-08-06 9:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-06 9:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-06 11:45 ` peterz
2020-08-06 11:45 ` peterz
2020-08-06 13:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-06 13:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-06 19:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-06 19:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-06 20:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-06 20:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-06 18:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-06 18:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-06 9:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-06 9:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=87d047n4oh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=alison.wang@nxp.com \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kurt.kanzenbach@linutronix.de \
--cc=leoyang.li@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mw@semihalf.com \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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.