Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753322AbdHKPBh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:01:37 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:34879 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752939AbdHKPBg (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:01:36 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:01:30 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Introduce housekeeping subsystem
Message-ID: <20170811150129.GB25912@lerouge>
References: <1500643290-25842-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <f50f9cb3-a3ea-3e2e-9b0a-ebb9af900568@mellanox.com>
 <20170810125437.GA8754@lerouge>
 <3398d7d6-74c2-4918-ae3d-aa5a2e3a12dd@mellanox.com>
 <1502433388.16425.9.camel@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1502433388.16425.9.camel@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1080
Lines: 24

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:36:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
> > > Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the point
> > > that its default behaviour will be the exact opposite of the current one: by default
> > > every CPU is housekeeping, so NO_HZ_FULL_ALL would have no effect anymore if we
> > > don't set housekeeping boot option.
> > 
> > Maybe a CONFIG_HOUSEKEEPING_BOOT_ONLY as a way to restrict housekeeping
> > by default to just the boot cpu.  In conjunction with NOHZ_FULL_ALL you would
> > then get the expected semantics.
> 
> A big box with only the boot cpu for housekeeping is likely screwed.

Indeed we probably shouldn't introduce new config that affine housekeeping to a
single CPU.

> Personally, I think?NOHZ_FULL_ALL should just die.

Yeah, although it's still useful for automatic boot testing to detect issues
with nohz_full on.

Thanks.