Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753087AbdHOPy6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:54:58 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:51377 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752453AbdHOPy4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:54:56 -0400 Message-ID: <1502812431.1349.91.camel@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] housekeeping: Use own boot option, independant from nohz From: Mike Galbraith To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Luiz Capitulino , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Lameter , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Wanpeng Li Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:53:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170815153005.GJ7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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> <20170815130712.GA16627@lerouge> <1502810123.1349.71.camel@gmx.de> <20170815153005.GJ7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:j0SPOuYBjUDpjyi8lXsOAC7bOmuYb8CW6ovsxMAyfc3MprVXZ+i NV/EtvHXQJ4YisIH5pSNfkC+QiIfmk+bJCPkZD7xsnOB/6o06/tS4KJqnBTLLruDfPRu4ru 4o/1xhAoWya8WyhBIzeOJX2zgx9TcH4sc4aPHn8A7mO79yidjoCrWeIrVlgCi8Qrv0B5PN6 ehwkJVjw9OM5wXwuVtxXA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:c1l76bAhAWM=:lhegv/p8zlg+G9Lgk3NWOB 2OGxsBpSgAL9Cn6IPSdlS2+XWqENAq3dMoP66ZuTA1YOQRL+gzNOzKf5vJvV3hGbPv4lIt2rZ vMGHGyuJdKZfsOztEIArLOKiMPbNF6U+mO8Rtvl8l9d/o6SqaiJYR4Iw2H1eJ8Nfgln4apM2s rv1Q06bUxRui9XY8L2NdfZMswo6ISrCsTidw0NMOx+v0jAfc0Zq3U8U2QPMwwjsoYRrhswUbU 1GLdHccMU74uVzdcBYfRVy/Sf0fj3YpUpaLKIA6Q5Q5E6m8Qt9yVcBE1nnMCnjfpqFmU+Fvdo z8bROAqpfEILgb/DUAsuaAwqoOuCP3ePVAncKT2LXMgSKb5V6aymMY4uGpomWvajcX88aDn2Z iSiIahNkIqT1SZqlnx7hnvyNeYmPTZEPXk8H1x0ENdGSZTbwrA0/QDNFTQpN59V3xnkeVOuil ZT794h6rBPS/np8WcBTeUA/B5S/7HZJftwakSfzjZyMQvJqYwiXY2jZNbWsS8R7TuS5v8P0rl oqU+BVQppCn13JlAG4lKnJHwfi51F3Os+iz9hsdhYRtGdXaEuTnOuAXkCbLYv9PoHuJ+scizB GAgtzazydZ0sxmjaEIRa8ZsBU094/9z1WLTBtr4rLk7ilZsJfd03GPIHDuyLr2aRUnM+/YORK m2qKBryVY/xcgUbVF7c5PVzPfoxowfE4gCBeQF5FtJis2BOs5emahiAzExH3auiKWQJsY9L5i 3lvu1QToai4/WeGnbq861DhPpCIg6HJzC1VTqt0jk5GSWW0+dLskVcY0fqkLA9nKAmukp9NUG JfGH/MEZezXAtzWUUeQ2aa6OhnfUvZ76dhkDWlRLGwTIHa37SM= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1717 Lines: 32 On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 08:30 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 05:15:23PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 15:07 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Why?  HPC proggies won't benefit from a partially filled pothole any > > more that a ~zero ground clearance formula 1 car would.  The pothole > > intolerant either isolate, killing (most) LB, or they meet a wall. > > Don't the HPC guys just disable idle_balance(), or am I out of date again? They could do just that if what they're doing is not really critical. I'm not an HPC guy, so can only speculate.  I don't see much difference between HPC and RT though, the rules of the game seem to be about the same (them both being HPC;).. what you can control, you do control. -Mike