Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1252048
| From | Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 08/14] nohz_full: allow disabling the 1Hz minimum tick at boot |
| Date | 2015-10-20 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qlMu5-7h9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qlM13-6so-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qlMkr-74W-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <qlMkr-74W-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 10/20/2015 05:03 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:36:06PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: >> While the current fallback to 1-second tick is still required for >> a number of kernel accounting tasks (e.g. vruntime, load balancing >> data, and load accounting), it's useful to be able to disable it >> for testing purposes. Paul McKenney observed that if we provide >> a mode where the 1Hz fallback timer is removed, this will provide >> an environment where new code that relies on that tick will get >> punished, and we won't forgive such assumptions silently. >> >> This option also allows easy testing of nohz_full and task-isolation >> modes to determine what functionality needs to be implemented, >> and what possibly-spurious timer interrupts are scheduled when >> the basic 1Hz tick has been turned off. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> > There have been proposals to disable/tune the 1 Hz tick via debugfs which > I Nacked because once you give such an opportunity to the users, they > will use that hack and never fix the real underlying issue. > > For the same reasons, I'm sorry but I have to Nack this proposal as well. > > If this is for development or testing purpose, scheduler_max_tick_deferment() is > easily commented out. Fair enough and certainly your prerogative, so don't hesitate to say "no" to the following argument. :-) I would tend to differentiate a debugfs proposal from a boot flag proposal: a boot flag is a more hardcore thing to change, and it's not like application developers will come along and explain that you have to boot with different flags to run their app - whereas if they can just sneak in a modification to a debugfs setting that's much easier for the app to tweak. So perhaps a boot flag is an acceptable compromise between "nothing" and a debugfs tweak? It certainly does make it easier to hack on the task-isolation code, and likely other things where people are trying out fixes to subsystems where they are attempting to remove the reliance on the tick. -- Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor http://www.ezchip.com -- 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/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v8 08/14] nohz_full: allow disabling the 1Hz minimum tick at boot Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v8 08/14] nohz_full: allow disabling the 1Hz minimum tick at boot Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> - 2015-10-20 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v8 08/14] nohz_full: allow disabling the 1Hz minimum tick at boot Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2015-10-21 03:10 +0200
RE: [PATCH v8 08/14] nohz_full: allow disabling the 1Hz minimum tick at boot Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@ezchip.com> - 2015-10-21 09:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v8 08/14] nohz_full: allow disabling the 1Hz minimum tick at boot Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2015-10-21 16:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v8 08/14] nohz_full: allow disabling the 1Hz minimum tick at boot Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 17:40 +0200
csiph-web