Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751989AbdHONHS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:07:18 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:34501 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751749AbdHONHR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:07:17 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:07:14 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, 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 7/9] housekeeping: Use own boot option, independant
 from nohz
Message-ID: <20170815130712.GA16627@lerouge>
References: <1500643290-25842-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1500643290-25842-8-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20170811123927.33e094f3@redhat.com>
 <20170812141004.GA21918@lerouge>
 <20170813111340.0ade6d58@redhat.com>
 <20170814170107.GA27479@lerouge>
 <20170814133440.3dc31bad@redhat.com>
 <1502735386.31351.61.camel@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1502735386.31351.61.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: 973
Lines: 18

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:29:46PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 13:34 -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:01:09 +0200
> > 
> > > What is the source of the load balancing inducing such latency when a single
> > > task is affine to a CPU? If this is idle load balancing, it is now affine to
> > > housekeepers. If this is task wakeup then it's suprising because select_task_rq()
> > > is optimized toward single CPU affinity.
> > 
> > I guess it was idle load balancing, but I don't remember because this
> > was a few years ago. I think this might be reproducible without using
> > isolcpus=. I'll give it a try shortly and let you know.
> 
> idle_balance() can swamp other noise by a couple orders of magnitude,

Ah I missed that one. Is there any way we can also lower the overhead there?
It looks unfortunately hard to tell if there is only one task affine to a given CPU,
assertion on top of which we could make a fast exit.