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:   Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:01:41 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@redhat.com>, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, will@kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, keescook@chromium.org,
        paulmck@kernel.org, jpoimboe@kernel.org, samitolvanen@google.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, juerg.haefliger@canonical.com,
        rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk, geert+renesas@glider.be,
        tony@atomide.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
        sebastian.reichel@collabora.com, nick.hawkins@hpe.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, vschneid@redhat.com, dhildenb@redhat.com,
        alougovs@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmu_gather: send tlb_remove_table_smp_sync IPI
 only to CPUs in kernel mode
Message-ID: <ZD/KFW0BaG1qJr0l@tpad>
References: <20230404134224.137038-1-ypodemsk@redhat.com>
 <20230404134224.137038-4-ypodemsk@redhat.com>
 <ZC1Q7uX4rNLg3vEg@lothringen>
 <ZC3PUkI7N2uEKy6v@tpad>
 <20230405195457.GC365912@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ZC6/0hRXztNwqXg0@tpad>
 <20230406133206.GN386572@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230406133206.GN386572@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:32:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:49:22AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> > > > 2) Depends on the application and the definition of "occasional".
> > > > 
> > > > For certain types of applications (for example PLC software or
> > > > RAN processing), upon occurrence of an event, it is necessary to
> > > > complete a certain task in a maximum amount of time (deadline).
> > > 
> > > If the application is properly NOHZ_FULL and never does a kernel entry,
> > > it will never get that IPI. If it is a pile of shit and does kernel
> > > entries while it pretends to be NOHZ_FULL it gets to keep the pieces and
> > > no amount of crying will get me to care.
> > 
> > I suppose its common practice to use certain system calls in latency
> > sensitive applications, for example nanosleep. Some examples:
> > 
> > 1) cyclictest		(nanosleep)
> 
> cyclictest is not a NOHZ_FULL application, if you tihnk it is, you're
> deluded.

On the field (what end-users do on production):

cyclictest runs on NOHZ_FULL cores.
PLC type programs run on NOHZ_FULL cores.

So accordingly to physical reality i observe, i am not deluded.

> > 2) PLC programs		(nanosleep)
> 
> What's a PLC? Programmable Logic Circuit?

Programmable logic controller.

> > A system call does not necessarily have to take locks, does it ?
> 
> This all is unrelated to locks

OK.

> > Or even if application does system calls, but runs under a VM,
> > then you are requiring it to never VM-exit.
> 
> That seems to be a goal for performance anyway.

Not sure what you mean.

> > This reduces the flexibility of developing such applications.
> 
> Yeah, that's the cards you're dealt, deal with it.

This is not what happens on the field.