DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C2C567CE1C
Message-ID: <1497980547.20270.106.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Spare idle load balancing on nohz_full CPUs
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:42:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1497838322-10913-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
References: <1497838322-10913-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
         <1497838322-10913-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256";
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-CV1YWDAL8WsUUV6Hz+Nv"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2480
Lines: 74


--=-CV1YWDAL8WsUUV6Hz+Nv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 04:12 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Although idle load balancing obviously only concern idle CPUs, it can
> be a disturbance on a busy nohz_full CPU. Indeed a CPU can only get
> rid
> of an idle load balancing duty once a tick fires while it runs a task
> and this can take a while in a nohz_full CPU.
>=20
> We could fix that and escape the idle load balancing duty from the
> very
> idle exit path but that would bring unecessary overhead. Lets just
> not
> bother and leave that job to housekeeping CPUs (those outside
> nohz_full
> range). The nohz_full CPUs simply don't want any disturbance.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> =C2=A0kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++++
> =C2=A01 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>=20
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index d711093..cfca960 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8659,6 +8659,10 @@ void nohz_balance_enter_idle(int cpu)
> =C2=A0	if (!cpu_active(cpu))
> =C2=A0		return;
> =C2=A0
> +	/* Spare idle load balancing on CPUs that don't want to be
> disturbed */
> +	if (!is_housekeeping_cpu(cpu))
> +		return;
> +
> =C2=A0	if (test_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu)))
> =C2=A0		return;

I am not entirely convinced on this one.

Doesn't the if (on_null_domain(cpu_rq(cpu)) test
a few lines down take care of this already?

Do we want nohz_full to always automatically
imply that no idle balancing will happen, like
on isolated CPUs?

--=20
All rights reversed
--=-CV1YWDAL8WsUUV6Hz+Nv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAABCAAGBQJZSV6DAAoJEM553pKExN6DG0cH/1a3htm1tytC//Mc6rm063/r
0iki5rX0MCfHK/0XpDGXy/M84GOXuMEJkUHR0yHd7xyPPJvO+HOHw+8iAP3pWGsH
A9wBLk+xBsFoFJW0/R0JVu9zsIi09yNhe68+J9XBBvC2NTPNPjBwQ4S25AiqFz2C
NgBRcjwoPiCADtanReVxteZd7m5M8RUY9HUnwaBZQV67R33Tmx3yxt0veFyqj7NP
yAaKQsS2VcRSxSegxhMbzQ0/S97zeJe+iS337l0JqkLT1Zd24p7POjpycE4xGN2w
ks7ezLBG4huWevLqrvKFo2d5pu0acfTMDoqA1U2+1VDs4ozlMuXMBpQ4OG6oKmc=
=K285
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-CV1YWDAL8WsUUV6Hz+Nv--