Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 12:21:22 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbecker@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/isolation: Add cpu_is_isolated() API
Message-ID: <ZCWo8n88qWL0GmQ8@tpad>
References: <20230317134448.11082-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20230317134448.11082-2-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <ZBSyaVk919Fi07Wv@tpad>
 <ZBSy2QZYZRtCNBd8@tpad>
 <ZBVwlv+Mi+GfR1E3@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <ZB4lt3IaPWVmn41n@localhost.localdomain>
 <ZCFu9jFm/rskeNlM@tpad>
 <ZCLT8iH2ltmQ40my@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <ZCRJJRz01vX8jPjb@tpad>
 <ZCWOlHmyO1YREEGt@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZCWOlHmyO1YREEGt@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:28:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Is this a best practice documented anywhere or it just happens to be
> > > the case with workloads you deal with?
> > 
> > Option 2. However Frederic seems interested in matching the exported
> > toggles with the known use-cases classes.
> > 
> > For example, for this guide:
> > http://www.comfilewiki.co.kr/en/doku.php?id=comfilepi:improving_real-time_performance:index
> > 
> > Using nohz_full= would be a benefit (and its not being currently set,
> > perhaps due to not knowing all the options?).
> > 
> > http://www.comfilewiki.co.kr/en/doku.php?id=comfilepi:improving_real-time_performance:index
> > 
> > 
> > AFAIU the workloads for which disabling nohz_full= is a benefit are those
> > where the switching between nohz full mode and sched tick enabled mode
> > and vice-versa (which involve programming the local timer) happens
> > often and is therefore avoidable? For example switching between 1
> > runnable task and more than 1 runnable task (and vice versa).
> 
> The patch from Frederic is testing for both. You seem to be arguing to
> reduce the test and I still do not understand why. Sure some workloads
> (following the above) will likely use nohz_full= as well but does it
> make sense to build that expectation into the higher level logic? What
> is an actual benefit?

Just thinking of simpler code. Feel free to maintain the patch as-is if
you see fit.