Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180939-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 13:25:18 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@gmail.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	anna-maria@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	Markus.Elfring@web.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full
 cpu becomes idle.
Message-ID: <ZkXtHv+fHUD2+lFJ@lothringen>
References: <20240508172621.30069-1-ppbuk5246@gmail.com>
 <20240509092931.35209-2-ppbuk5246@gmail.com>
 <ZkU8lm2tjm_r9FpZ@pavilion.home>
 <20240516075628.GC22557@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAM7-yPRHp3tiZjuBTesdRQoU8WJNg1scon_txS_6R-pZq9MXHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240516084911.GF22557@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240516084911.GF22557@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:49:11AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:20:08AM +0100, Yun Levi wrote:
> > > None of that HK nonsense is relevant. The NOHZ_FULL nonsense implies
> > > single CPU partitions, and *that* should be avoiding any and all
> > > load-balancing.
> > 
> > Do you mean.. tick_nohz_full cpu (non-HK-ticked cpu) shouldn't belong
> > to any sched_domain?
> 
> AFAIK NOHZ_FULL still hard relies on the isolcpus garbage, so yeah, it
> should be all single cpu partitions, which don't have a domain.
> 
> (this really should migrate to use cpusets partitions)
> 
> > > If there still is, that's a bug, but that's not related to HK goo.
> > >
> > > As such, I don't think the HK_TYPE_SCHED check in
> > > nohz_balance_enter_idle() actually makes sense, the on_null_omain()
> > > check a little below that should already take care of things, no?
> > 
> > IIUC,
> > currently, whether cpu belongs on domain or null is determined by
> > HK_DOMAIN_FLAGS
> 
> No! you can create NULL domains without any of the HK nonsense. Both
> isolcpus and cpusets can create single CPU partitions.
> 
> > However, when "nohz_full=" is used, it still on HK_DOMAIN, so it
> > belongs to sched_domain
> > so, it couldn't be filtered out by on_null_domain().
> > 
> > unless "isolcpus=domain" or "isolcpus={cpu_list}", it's on null domain.
> > with "isolcpus=tick", it participates sched_domain.
> 
> Frederic ?!? You can use nohz_full without isolcpus? That makes no
> sense. If you do that you get to keep the pieces.

I fear you can yes, even though most users combine it with isolcpus. I
know, that interface is terrible but it dates from times when we weren't
sure about all the potential usecases of nohz_full. There was a possibility
that HPC could just want to reduce ticks without all the hard and costly
isolation around. But all the usecases I have witnessed so far in ten years
involved wanting 0 noise after all...