From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/isolation: Add HK_FLAG_SCHED to nohz_full
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:44:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZthWKgK9B_AUqSs1@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4822d111-b02d-469a-a457-46392c35021f@redhat.com>
Le Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 09:23:53PM -0400, Waiman Long a écrit :
> > After discussing with Peter lately, the rules should be:
> >
> > 1) If a nohz_full CPU is part of a multi-CPU domain, then it should
> > be part of load balancing. Peter even says that nohz_full should be
> > forbidden in this case, because the tick plays a role in the
> > load balancing.
>
> My understand is that most users will use nohz_full together with isolcpus.
> So nohz_full CPUs are also isolated and not in a sched domain. There may
> still be user setting nohz_full without isolcpus though, but that should be
> relatively rare.
Apparently there are users wanting to use isolation along with automatic
containers deployments such as kubernetes, which doesn't seem to work
well with isolcpus...
>
> Anyway, all these nohz_full/kernel_nose setting will only apply to CPUs in
> isolated cpuset partitions which will not be in a sched domain.
>
> >
> > 2) Otherwise, if CPU is not part of a domain or it is the only CPU of all its
> > domains, then it can be out of the load balancing machinery.
> I am aware that a single-cpu domain is the same as being isolated with no
> load balancing.
By the way is it possible to have a single-cpu domain (sorry I'm a noob here)
or do such CPU always end up on a null domain?
If it is possible, it's interesting to notice that such CPU can become ilb
(as opposed to null domain).
> >
> > I'm a bit scared about rule 1) because I know there are existing users of
> > nohz_full on multi-CPU domains... So I feel a bit trapped.
>
> As stated before, this is not a common use case.
Not sure and anyway it's not a forbidden usecase. But this is anyway outside
the scope of this patchset.
> The isolcpus boot option is deprecated, as stated in kernel-parameters.txt.
We should undeprecate it, apparently it's still widely used. Perhaps by people
who can't afford to use cpusets/cgroups.
> My plan is to deprecate nohz_full as well once we are able to make dynamic
> CPU isolation via cpuset works almost as good as isolcpus + nohz_full.
You can't really deprecate such a kernel boot option unfortunately. Believe me
I wish we could.
Thanks.
> Cheers,
> Longman
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-04 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-18 23:45 [PATCH 0/3] sched: Miscellaneous isolation related cleanups Waiman Long
2024-08-18 23:45 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched/isolation: Add HK_FLAG_SCHED to nohz_full Waiman Long
2024-09-03 13:10 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-09-03 13:24 ` Waiman Long
2024-09-03 21:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-09-04 1:23 ` Waiman Long
2024-09-04 12:44 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2024-09-04 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-04 13:41 ` Waiman Long
2024-09-04 13:44 ` Phil Auld
2024-09-04 14:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-04 14:32 ` Phil Auld
2024-09-04 14:09 ` Waiman Long
2024-09-06 12:36 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-08-18 23:45 ` [PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: Use HK_TYPE_SCHED housekeeping CPUs Waiman Long
2024-09-03 13:12 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-09-03 13:53 ` Waiman Long
2024-09-04 14:54 ` Waiman Long
2024-09-06 12:53 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-09-06 16:31 ` Waiman Long
2024-08-18 23:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched/isolation: Consolidate housekeeping cpumasks that are always identical Waiman Long
2024-08-23 18:23 ` [PATCH 0/3] sched: Miscellaneous isolation related cleanups Waiman Long
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=ZthWKgK9B_AUqSs1@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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