Subject: Re: [BUG] rebuild_sched_domains considered dangerous
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Jesse Larrew <jlarrew@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110309141548.722e4f56@mschwide.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
References: <1299639487.22236.256.camel@pasglop>
	 <1299665998.2308.2753.camel@twins> <1299670429.2308.2834.camel@twins>
	 <20110309141548.722e4f56@mschwide.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:19:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1299676769.2308.2944.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1699
Lines: 36

On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 14:15 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:33:49 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 11:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > It appears that this corresponds to one CPU deciding to rebuild the
> > > > sched domains. There's various reasons why that can happen, the typical
> > > > one in our case is the new VPNH feature where the hypervisor informs us
> > > > of a change in node affinity of our virtual processors. s390 has a
> > > > similar feature and should be affected as well.
> > > 
> > > Ahh, so that's triggering it :-), just curious, how often does the HV do
> > > that to you? 
> > 
> > OK, so Ben told me on IRC this can happen quite frequently, to which I
> > must ask WTF were you guys smoking? Flipping the CPU topology every time
> > the HV scheduler does something funny is quite insane. And you did that
> > without ever talking to the scheduler folks, not cool.
> > 
> > That is of course aside from the fact that we have a real bug there that
> > needs fixing, but really guys, WTF!
> 
> Just for info, on s390 the topology change events are rather infrequent.
> They do happen e.g. after an LPAR has been activated and the LPAR
> hypervisor needs to reshuffle the CPUs of the different nodes.

But if you don't also update the cpu->node memory mappings (which I
think it near impossible) what good is it to change the scheduler
topology?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/