Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:6744:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id w4csp371540pxu; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 05:30:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2LZBfQMmiF8uRu3w7i8QJg6XP35ElcGUVcfVqcCpCFTZzH7Y2L/CoM6m3JbVrBmu1rNAh X-Received: by 2002:a50:b745:: with SMTP id g63mr3329536ede.181.1602073851528; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 05:30:51 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1602073851; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=f9zbp5XFB0kJW5tCOTmKT6r3/2IZVkLaezsJglfopeWgMYYaS1/jM9JWZ3HMYZkAjs 3AN581l3x5lS31BsVW2AqvSpL3CrKcjMd52ahrTxQop7RPIZwvOQFOexEy+iShCLUXl3 xTadhthotEBHGjnYhTWl0GuEEB81fHBSt/8wKCj5yHXU+IqGeEFWiKIJ4H5tHylEO/IC qVtSDP8fPEtmkCJ5QamjF7ou56C/4CKOw43LTiPTXX7YmVCVYUN7fyOcNzXLr3J27XgQ Bpzf3hNs9V4452NilYSBUwcGzb5KWp1F9Tjj4Ry2crvp1JohuIg8OTfaPmCFgoRiBBJX wQkw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=V5IGfljwHBccTu4EnUAuGHAEO7WK+XuDIhx9cYCdy2Q=; b=aFR9TVP+q3Y0h+w9hLmAZnT3RR8+ijRfNIcQg0K+ix0Ek2R4a09EXPCiDoGvu4wDwC cjoeVKskSZ8VLoWbXt9iNruwnE8bFUl+NlCpclxwnMmrYY6AWS/duDN0dBwYqj/zuT5e XdTe8E6FJV4ErOMwSHbZIa+4T6va7/nOYPvBnsctzEhx7kKk/rHcCWyMKDgl0XaQV69c fYCOfJQl7olQUJNP8PWFes0d/4DQM4Vm9lP5A/x74mZhIv8CoKTbbzfcuzuqxBN82XkB Ca3z6mZINQGIWEUrfvfeDOCaLiH0O3UtTsGRIcnCUL0+UFAly4MQzmM2LRrBvqvFwN1H NKDg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=eY65VnS9; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ds7si1588496ejc.648.2020.10.07.05.30.26; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 05:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=eY65VnS9; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728165AbgJGM3Z (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:29:25 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49192 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727253AbgJGM3Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:29:25 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1602073764; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=V5IGfljwHBccTu4EnUAuGHAEO7WK+XuDIhx9cYCdy2Q=; b=eY65VnS9rBQbaDJPW7r95aCTaRmGsQzEJKdrVNI3mA8t2dTGk7SKze/lsyN8dISFDP8oYm rCaZLEdP9Tb/pOhsyHxKKikCjlZRtD4QupiJpHcH2Zs26zSX6OP9WUUY+BxFJ+2MgDg8NN t2Dzv+bbjjunlPYfMuFhG2h7UlXzR7E= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAE9ADEC; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:29:23 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , Mel Gorman , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: allow to configure PREEMPT_NONE, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY on kernel command line Message-ID: <20201007122923.GJ29020@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20201007120401.11200-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20201007121939.GE2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201007121939.GE2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 07-10-20 14:19:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 02:04:01PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > Many people are still relying on pre built distribution kernels and so > > distributions have to provide mutliple kernel flavors to offer different > > preemption models. Most of them are providing PREEMPT_NONE for typical > > server deployments and PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY for desktop users. > > Is there actually a benefit to NONE? We were recently talking about > removing it. I believe Mel can provide much better insight. We have been historically using PREEMPT_NONE for our enterprise customers mostly for nice throughput numbers. Many users are really targeting throughput much more than latencies. My understanding is that even though VOLUNTARY preemption model doesn't add too many preemption points on top of NONE it is still something that is observable (IIRC 2-3% on hackbench). > The much more interesting (runtime) switch (IMO) would be between > VOLUNTARY and PREEMPT. Absolutely and as said we are looking into that. This is meant to be a first baby step in that direction. Still very useful in our current situation when we want to provide both NONE and VOLUNTARY. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs