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;
Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 16:33:19 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net
Subject: Re: [RFC] trace: Add option for polling ring buffers
Message-ID: <20210519193319.GC103930@fuller.cnet>
References: <20210519175755.670876-1-nsaenzju@redhat.com>
 <YKVT+sQTgNpCR/Gt@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YKVT+sQTgNpCR/Gt@casper.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


Hi Willy,

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 07:07:54PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 07:57:55PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > To minimize trace's effect on isolated CPUs. That is, CPUs were only a
> > handful or a single, process are allowed to run. Introduce a new trace
> > option: 'poll-rb'.
> 
> maybe this should take a parameter in ms (us?) saying how frequently
> to poll?  it seems like a reasonable assumption that somebody running in
> this kind of RT environment would be able to judge how often their
> monitoring task needs to collect data.

+1 (yes please).

> > [1] The IPI, in this case, an irq_work, is needed since trace might run
> > in NMI context. Which is not suitable for wake-ups.
> 
> could we also consider a try-wakeup which would not succeed if in NMI
> context?  or are there situations where we only gather data in NMI
> context, and so would never succeed in waking up?  if so, maybe
> schedule the irq_work every 1000 failures to wake up.

We'd like to reduce overhead on the isolated (as in isolcpus=) CPUs as 
much as possible (but yes this option was suggested).