From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754311Ab2C0LTx (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:19:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:40116 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753817Ab2C0LTv (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:19:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:19:45 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Christoph Lameter Cc: LKML , linaro-sched-sig@lists.linaro.org, Alessio Igor Bogani , Andrew Morton , Avi Kivity , Chris Metcalf , Daniel Lezcano , Geoff Levand , Gilad Ben Yossef , Ingo Molnar , Max Krasnyansky , "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Stephen Hemminger , Steven Rostedt , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Thomas Gleixner , Zen Lin Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/32] cpuset: Set up interface for nohz flag Message-ID: <20120327111943.GB13196@somewhere> References: <1332338318-5958-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1332338318-5958-9-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:50:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > Prepare the interface to implement the nohz cpuset flag. > > This flag, once set, will tell the system to try to > > shutdown the periodic timer tick when possible. > > > > We use here a per cpu refcounter. As long as a CPU > > is contained into at least one cpuset that has the > > nohz flag set, it is part of the set of CPUs that > > run into adaptive nohz mode. > > What are the drawbacks for nohz? > > If there are none: Can we make nohz default behavior without relying on > cpusets? I can't tell for now. I haven't yet covered everything the timer is handling. Until that happens I can't do measurements. In theory this sounds like a win in every case. I just would like to test that in practice. This sets up hooks in kernel entry/exit. More IPIs here and there. May be this adds overhead on workloads involving a lot of syscalls or exceptions. I don't know. Given this is not yet entirely clear, I think it may be better to keep this interface around until the patchset reaches a version that becomes mergeable. Then at this point we can get serious testing coverage to take the decision to drop the interface and make it unconditional on CONFIG_ADAPTIVE_NO_HZ.