From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
"John B. Wyatt IV" <jwyatt@redhat.com>,
"John B. Wyatt IV" <sageofredondo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 7/7] timers: Exclude isolated cpus from timer migration
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 23:31:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aR5FK-RkGlUv0qY3@pavilion.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87cy5dlll9.ffs@tglx>
Le Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 11:10:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 19 2025 at 23:02, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:23:11PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
> >> If you want to be a bit smarter, then you can just use a global mutex,
> >> which is taken inside the set/clear_available() functions which
> >> serializes the related functionality and bulk schedule/flush the unisol
> >> (make available) first and then proceed to the isol (make unavailable).
> >>
> >> Then nothing has to change vs. the set/clear operations and everything
> >> just works.
> >>
> >> That mutex does not do any harm in the CPU hotplug case and the
> >> serialization vs. the workers is not going to be the end of the world.
> >>
> >> I'm willing to bet that no real-world use-case will ever notice the
> >> existance of this mutex. The microbenchmark which shows off the "I'm so
> >> smart" metric is completely irrelevant especially when the result is
> >> fragile, incomprehensible and therefore unmaintainable.
> >>
> >> Keep it correct and simple is still the most important engineering
> >> principle. Premature optimization is a guaranteed path to failure.
> >>
> >> If there is a compelling use case which justifies the resulting
> >> complexity, then it can be built on top. I'm not holding my breath. See
> >> above...
> >
> > Perhaps the only thing that worries me is if an isolated partition
> > is inverted. Say 0-3 is non isolated and 4-7 is isolated. And then
> > cpuset is overwritten so that the reverse is applied: 0-3 is isolated
> > and 4-7 is not isolated. If all isol works reach before unisol works,
> > then tmigr_clear_cpu_available() -> cpumask_any(tmigr_available_mask)
> > won't find any CPU left on the last call.
>
> schedule the newly available (now unisolated) ones first and flush that
> work. After that you can safely mark the others unavailable, no?
Yes!
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-19 22:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-13 8:33 [PATCH v15 0/7] timers: Exclude isolated cpus from timer migration Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-13 8:33 ` [PATCH v15 1/7] timers: Rename tmigr 'online' bit to 'available' Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-19 15:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-11-13 8:33 ` [PATCH v15 2/7] timers: Add the available mask in timer migration Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-19 15:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-11-13 8:33 ` [PATCH v15 3/7] timers: Use scoped_guard when setting/clearing the tmigr available flag Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-19 15:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-11-13 8:33 ` [PATCH v15 4/7] cgroup/cpuset: Rename update_unbound_workqueue_cpumask() to update_isolation_cpumasks() Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-13 8:33 ` [PATCH v15 5/7] sched/isolation: Force housekeeping if isolcpus and nohz_full don't leave any Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-13 8:33 ` [PATCH v15 6/7] cpumask: Add initialiser to use cleanup helpers Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-13 8:33 ` [PATCH v15 7/7] timers: Exclude isolated cpus from timer migration Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-19 16:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-11-19 17:14 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-11-19 18:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-11-19 20:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-11-19 21:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-11-19 22:02 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-11-19 22:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-11-19 22:31 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2025-11-19 20:43 ` Waiman Long
2025-11-20 10:48 ` Gabriele Monaco
2025-11-20 21:04 ` Waiman Long
2025-11-13 13:12 ` [PATCH v15 0/7] " Frederic Weisbecker
2025-11-18 10:01 ` Gabriele Monaco
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=aR5FK-RkGlUv0qY3@pavilion.home \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=gmonaco@redhat.com \
--cc=jwyatt@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=sageofredondo@gmail.com \
--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