Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1234433 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully disabled

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully disabled Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-09-28 22:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully  disabled Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 15:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully  disabled Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-10-01 16:20 +0200

#1234433 — Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully disabled

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> wrote:
> While the current fallback to 1-second tick is still helpful for
> maintaining completely correct kernel semantics, processes using
> prctl(PR_SET_TASK_ISOLATION) semantics place a higher priority on
> running completely tickless, so don't bound the time_delta for such
> processes.  In addition, due to the way such processes quiesce by
> waiting for the timer tick to stop prior to returning to userspace,
> without this commit it won't be possible to use the task_isolation
> mode at all.
>
> Removing the 1-second cap was previously discussed (see link
> below) and Thomas Gleixner observed that vruntime, load balancing
> data, load accounting, and other things might be impacted.
> Frederic Weisbecker similarly observed that allowing the tick to
> be indefinitely deferred just meant that no one would ever fix the
> underlying bugs.  However it's at least true that the mode proposed
> in this patch can only be enabled on a nohz_full core by a process
> requesting task_isolation mode, which may limit how important it is
> to maintain scheduler data correctly, for example.

What goes wrong when a task enables this?  Presumably either tasks
that enable it experience problems or performance issues or it should
always be enabled.

One possible issue: __vdso_clock_gettime with any of the COARSE clocks
as well as __vdso_time will break if the timekeeping code doesn't run
somewhere with reasonable frequency on some core.  Hopefully this
always works.

--Andy
--
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/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1237410 — Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully disabled

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:40:56PM -0400, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> wrote:
> > While the current fallback to 1-second tick is still helpful for
> > maintaining completely correct kernel semantics, processes using
> > prctl(PR_SET_TASK_ISOLATION) semantics place a higher priority on
> > running completely tickless, so don't bound the time_delta for such
> > processes.  In addition, due to the way such processes quiesce by
> > waiting for the timer tick to stop prior to returning to userspace,
> > without this commit it won't be possible to use the task_isolation
> > mode at all.
> >
> > Removing the 1-second cap was previously discussed (see link
> > below) and Thomas Gleixner observed that vruntime, load balancing
> > data, load accounting, and other things might be impacted.
> > Frederic Weisbecker similarly observed that allowing the tick to
> > be indefinitely deferred just meant that no one would ever fix the
> > underlying bugs.  However it's at least true that the mode proposed
> > in this patch can only be enabled on a nohz_full core by a process
> > requesting task_isolation mode, which may limit how important it is
> > to maintain scheduler data correctly, for example.
> 
> What goes wrong when a task enables this?  Presumably either tasks
> that enable it experience problems or performance issues or it should
> always be enabled.

We need to make the scheduler resilient to 0Hz tick. Currently it doesn't
even correctly support 1Hz or any dynticks behaviour that isn't idle.

See update_cpu_load_active() for exemple.

> 
> One possible issue: __vdso_clock_gettime with any of the COARSE clocks
> as well as __vdso_time will break if the timekeeping code doesn't run
> somewhere with reasonable frequency on some core.  Hopefully this
> always works.
> 
> --Andy
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1237445 — Re: [PATCH v7 06/11] nohz: task_isolation: allow tick to be fully disabled

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:40:56PM -0400, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> wrote:
> > > While the current fallback to 1-second tick is still helpful for
> > > maintaining completely correct kernel semantics, processes using
> > > prctl(PR_SET_TASK_ISOLATION) semantics place a higher priority on
> > > running completely tickless, so don't bound the time_delta for such
> > > processes.  In addition, due to the way such processes quiesce by
> > > waiting for the timer tick to stop prior to returning to userspace,
> > > without this commit it won't be possible to use the task_isolation
> > > mode at all.
> > >
> > > Removing the 1-second cap was previously discussed (see link
> > > below) and Thomas Gleixner observed that vruntime, load balancing
> > > data, load accounting, and other things might be impacted.
> > > Frederic Weisbecker similarly observed that allowing the tick to
> > > be indefinitely deferred just meant that no one would ever fix the
> > > underlying bugs.  However it's at least true that the mode proposed
> > > in this patch can only be enabled on a nohz_full core by a process
> > > requesting task_isolation mode, which may limit how important it is
> > > to maintain scheduler data correctly, for example.
> > 
> > What goes wrong when a task enables this?  Presumably either tasks
> > that enable it experience problems or performance issues or it should
> > always be enabled.
> 
> We need to make the scheduler resilient to 0Hz tick. Currently it doesn't
> even correctly support 1Hz or any dynticks behaviour that isn't idle.

Rik has started to work on this. No idea what the status of that is.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web