Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:49:27 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.de>, frederic@kernel.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, pauld@redhat.com, neelx@redhat.com,
        oleksandr@natalenko.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] tick/sched: Ensure quiet_vmstat() is called when
 the idle tick was stopped too
Message-ID: <20220427144927.c5as3sa4mheawea5@ava.usersys.com>
References: <20220422193647.3808657-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204250919400.2367@gentwo.de>
 <20220425113909.u3smtztp66svlw4o@ava.usersys.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204251406370.13839@gentwo.de>
 <20220425132700.GK2731@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220425141717.vw2jfnn3zp6c5ib2@ava.usersys.com>
 <Ymb018EaVlOUfx87@fuller.cnet>
 <20220427115020.kyaxc5j67lq5zrfq@ava.usersys.com>
 <875ymuy4h8.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <875ymuy4h8.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 2022-04-27 16:40 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2022 at 12:50, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > On Mon 2022-04-25 16:21 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> Is there anything that prevents a nohz full CPU from running an
> >> application with short and frequent idling?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the question; albeit, if I understand correctly,
> > yes: the scheduling-clock tick, if it was stopped.
> > Yet I believe this behaviour is correct. Consider the following example:
> >
> >   When a CFS task is moved/or migrated to a nohz_full CPU that was
> >   previously idle and had its tick stopped, if its the only task on the
> >   run-queue then it is possible that the idle task may not restart the
> >   tick (see __tick_nohz_full_update_tick()).  Thus once the CFS task exits
> >   manual intervention i.e. a reschedule IPI to wake the idle task, would be
> >   required to run again, on the same CPU.
> 
> When the task exits and the tick was stopped, why should idle restart
> the tick? There is nothing to do, so what?

Hi Thomas,

Indeed. As per my response, I do not see an issue. Perhaps I misunderstood
Marcelo's question, no?

Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin