From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: don't try to balance rt_runtime when it is futile
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:09:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5374CAB0.2070305@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1400122194.5175.18.camel@marge.simpson.net>
On 14-05-14 10:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 15:11 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
>> Given that, perhaps a separate change to sched_rt_runtime_exceeded()
>> that works out the CPU from the rt_rq, and returns zero if it is a
>> nohz_full cpu? Does that make sense? Then the nohz_full people won't
>> get the throttling message even if they go 100%.
>
> I don't get it. What reason would there be to run a hog on a dedicated
> core as realtime policy/priority? Given no competition, there's nothing
> to prioritize, you could just as well run a critical task as SCHED_IDLE.
Well, as per the original commit log, we acknowledge that people will do
stupid things that don't make 100% sense, and when they do, we should
ideally behave in a sane fashion in response to that. And I don't think
that "no competition" is a given for most folks. They see all these
internal threads running and just figure they can chrt their way to a
solution, vs. taking the time to clean up, enable RCU_NOCB etc etc.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending such behaviour...
>
> I would also expect that anyone wanting bare metal will have all of
> their critical cores isolated from the scheduler, watchdogs turned off
> as well as that noisy throttle, the whole point being to make as much
> silent as possible. Seems to me tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu) should be
> predicated by that cpu being isolated from the #1 noise source, the
> scheduler and its load balancing. There's just no point to nohz_full
> without that, or if there is, I sure don't see it.
An interesting point. One could argue that the default for the nohz_full
cores should be to be isolated from the scheduler, vs needing to be
manually excluded.
P.
--
>
> When I see people trying to run a hog as a realtime task, it's because
> they are trying in vain to keep competition away from precious cores..
> and one mlockall with a realtime hog blocking flush_work() gives them a
> wakeup call.
>
> -Mike
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-15 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-14 15:08 [PATCH] sched/rt: don't try to balance rt_runtime when it is futile Paul Gortmaker
2014-05-14 15:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-14 19:11 ` Paul Gortmaker
2014-05-14 19:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-15 2:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-15 14:09 ` Paul Gortmaker [this message]
2014-11-27 9:17 ` Wanpeng Li
2014-11-27 15:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-11-27 11:36 ` Wanpeng Li
2014-05-15 3:18 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-15 14:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-15 17:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-18 4:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-18 5:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-18 8:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-18 15:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-19 2:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-19 5:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-20 14:53 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-20 15:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-20 16:24 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-20 16:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-20 17:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-21 4:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-21 4:18 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-21 12:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-21 3:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-19 10:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-19 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-22 19:40 ` Paul Gortmaker
2014-11-27 11:21 ` Wanpeng Li
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=5374CAB0.2070305@windriver.com \
--to=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox