From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] Make x86 calibrate_delay run in parallel.
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:30:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D9457BF.1040601@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110331095705.GA23319@elte.hu>
On 03/31/2011 11:57 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I am not trying to be argumentative. I never got an understanding of
> > what was going wrong with that earlier patch and am hoping for some
> > understanding now.
>
> Well, if calibrate_delay() calls run in parallel then different hyperthreads
> will impact each other.
It's different but not more wrong. If delay() later runs on a thread
whose sibling is busy, it will in fact give more accurate results.
> > Why does it spectacularly miscalibrate? Can anything be done to correct
> > that miscalibration? Doesn't this patch indicate another problem with
> > the calibration for hotplug cpus? Isn't there already a problem if
> > you boot a cpu normally, then hot-remove a hyperthread of a cpu, run a
> > userland task which fully loads up all the cores on that socket, then
> > hot-add that hyperthread back in? If the lpj value is that volatile,
> > what value does it really have?
>
> The typical CPU hotplug usecase is suspend/resume, where we bring down the CPUs
> in a more or less controlled manner.
>
> Yes, you could achieve something similar by frobbing /sys/*/*/online but that's
> a big difference to *always* running the calibration loops in parallel.
>
> I'd argue for the opposite direction: only calibrate a physical CPU once per
> CPU per bootup - this would also make CPU hotplug faster btw.
>
> ( Virtual CPUs (KVM, etc.) need a recalibration per bringup, because the new
> CPU could be running on different hardware - but that's a detail: 4096 UV
> CPUs are not in this category. )
Virtual cpus change their performance dynamically due to overcommit,
live migration, the host scheduler rearranging them, etc.
> Really, there's no good reason why every CPU should be calibrated on a system
> running identical CPUs, right? Mixed-frequency systems are rather elusive on
> x86.
Good point. And udelay() users are probably not sensitive to accuracy
anyway (which changes with load and thermal conditions).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-31 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-15 1:58 [RFC 0/2] Speed large x86_64 system boot by calling calibrate_delay() in parallel Robin, Holt <holt
2010-12-15 1:58 ` [RFC 1/2] Pass loops_per_jiffy in and out of calibrate_delay() Robin, Holt <holt
2010-12-15 1:58 ` [RFC 2/2] Make x86 calibrate_delay run in parallel Robin, Holt <holt
2010-12-16 8:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-03-31 4:46 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-31 6:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 6:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 9:37 ` Robin Holt
2011-03-31 9:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 10:30 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2011-03-31 10:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 10:49 ` Avi Kivity
2011-03-31 11:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 11:50 ` Robin Holt
2011-03-31 9:29 ` Robin Holt
2011-03-31 14:25 ` Yinghai Lu
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=4D9457BF.1040601@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yinghai@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox