From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch] clockevents: Reinstate the per cpu tick skew
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:32:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EFB1A56.1040902@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1324977605.5217.132.camel@marge.simson.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/27/2011 10:20 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> Quoting removal commit af5ab277ded04bd9bc6b048c5a2f0e7d70ef0867
> Historically, Linux has tried to make the regular timer tick on
> the various CPUs not happen at the same time, to avoid contention
> on xtime_lock.
>
> Nowadays, with the tickless kernel, this contention no longer
> happens since time keeping and updating are done differently. In
> addition, this skew is actually hurting power consumption in a
> measurable way on many-core systems. End quote
>
> Contention remains a problem if NO_HZ is either not configured, or
> is nohz=off disabled due to workload constraints. The RT kernel
> running nohz=off was measured to be using > 1.4% CPU just ticking
> 64 CPUs, with tick perturbation reaching ~80us. For loads where
> measured (>100us) NO_HZ latencies are intolerable, a must have.
I think we need to just say no to this, and kill the nohz=off option
entirely.
Seriously, are people still running with ticks for any legitimate
reasons? (and not just because they goofed their config file)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO+xpVAAoJEEHdSxh4DVnEMvUH/A5qOO+igivDtdEjw5b39w3h
4fG7VLiyn34+AAFmBqfgx9dKbl4DkYzBBRYXcNVnicnjqnH7ZZ+FOvFo2zOCUiGG
xeDNox4hcl1jJ/6J1o6p1ecJXOUlbwNsXF9SVG38HPpJ4D0mgllAdy1wHJfv3+LA
Ad98sUDmhq2gpcjyupvv7exIor1i3JFo/Q+CFbDTVQrgz99zo/D2IX3ps4wRfhHq
q0rKcU4ZZJVHeHkItHOyEgeex9RPGlxNRSUu50zIHKugVlH9wbTtIzBkPzt1Nn0S
yThyQGd/xcFfQDaiwymWLf78d6wpEZ/BW+QIlPlO2xNMD/Qz980w86yyh0x2FQk=
=yDHd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-28 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-24 9:06 3.0.14-rt31 + 64 cores = very bad jitter == highly synchronized tick? Mike Galbraith
2011-12-25 7:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-26 8:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-27 6:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-27 9:20 ` [patch] clockevents: Reinstate the per cpu tick skew Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 5:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 8:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 9:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 13:35 ` Arjan van de Ven
2011-12-28 14:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-28 17:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-29 7:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 13:32 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
2011-12-28 15:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-01-03 6:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-04-23 6:13 ` irq latency regression post af5ab277 - was " Mike Galbraith
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=4EFB1A56.1040902@linux.intel.com \
--to=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).