Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1741364 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-28 12:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-10-01 08:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
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.
Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-09-28 12:00 +0200
Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 15:40 +0200
Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4 Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2017-10-01 08:40 +0200
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-28 12:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4 |
| Message-ID | <uuDLR-7o2-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > Ingo, > > Please pull the core/isolation-v4 branch that can be found at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git > core/isolation-v4 > > HEAD: cf4c55aad44251369c8507c3823f9f9c51d4dc77 > > Summary of changes: > > * Move the housekeeping code that was tied to NO_HZ to its own subsystem. > Currently NO_HZ governs the other isolation features which is not right > as dynticks is just an isolation feature like the others. We want to > centralize the CPU isolation decisions to a subsystem of its own instead. > > * Integrate isolcpus code to housekeeping and treat it as a CPU isolation > feature. > > * Reuse the "isolcpus=" kernel parameter to control the CPU isolation. > For now only tick and domains can be isolated after this patchset: > > isolcpus=1-7 # isolate domains on CPU range 1 to 7 > # "domain" flag is implicit by default to > # keep the current behaviour > > isolcpus=domain,1-7 # do the same > > isolcpus=nohz,1-7 # apply nohz_full to CPU range 1 to 7 > > isolcpus=nohz,domain,1-7 # apply nohz_full and isolate domains of > # CPU range 1 to 7 > > Thanks, > Frederic > --- > > Frederic Weisbecker (12): > housekeeping: Move housekeeping related code to its own file > watchdog: Use housekeeping_cpumask() instead of ad-hoc version > housekeeping: Provide a dynamic off-case to housekeeping_any_cpu() > housekeeping: Make housekeeping cpumask private > housekeeping: Use its own static key > housekeeping: Rename is_housekeeping_cpu to housekeeping_cpu > housekeeping: Move it under its own config, independant from NO_HZ > housekeeping: Introduce housekeeping flags > housekeeping: Handle nohz_full= parameter > housekeeping: Move isolcpus to housekeeping > housekeeping: Add basic isolcpus flags > housekeeping: Document isolcpus flags > > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 33 +++--- > drivers/base/cpu.c | 11 +- > drivers/net/ethernet/tile/tilegx.c | 6 +- > include/linux/housekeeping.h | 51 ++++++++ > include/linux/sched.h | 2 - > include/linux/tick.h | 39 +------ > init/Kconfig | 7 ++ > init/main.c | 2 + > kernel/Makefile | 1 + > kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 15 +-- > kernel/housekeeping.c | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +- > kernel/rcu/update.c | 3 +- > kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +--- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 +- > kernel/sched/topology.c | 24 +--- > kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 31 +---- > kernel/watchdog.c | 13 +-- > 18 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 142 deletions(-) Yeah, so while I agree that all this functionality needs to be factored out and organized, I have a problem with this specific high level organization. The main problem I think is that it's all called "housekeeping", which is pretty fuzzy and opaque. What does 'housekeeping' exactly mean? A dozen of details if you look at the code - and this name does not make it much easier to think about this whole problem category. So how about introducing _two_ new high level concepts: 1) 'global time handling' 2) 'double async CPU callbacks' The notion of 'global time' handling is obvious to everyone I think: it involves the system-global guarantee that certain kernel jobs will be executed periodically. At least one CPU in the system needs to handle 'global time'. The notion of 'double async CPU callbacks' is less obvious: it involves the action of invoking a callback on a CPU, that might be executed on _another_ CPU. I.e. there are 3 CPUs involved: - the invoking CPU - the target CPU - the CPU(s!) that will handle the callback (the housekeeping CPU mask) For example the kmem-cache on_each_cpu() calls in mm/slab.c would fall into this category. I don't know to what extent it makes sense to formalize and unify these facilities: it's certain that the (former) housekeeping CPU mask should be shared by these two facilities: the CPU executing global time callbacks periodically should be one of the CPUs that execute double-async CPU callbacks. But by separating all this functionality into these two categories, it's already much easier to me to argue about which bit does what and why. What do you think? Thanks, Ingo
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-29 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uv3Gi-6KD-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1741364 |
On 28/09/2017 11:54, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ingo, >> >> Please pull the core/isolation-v4 branch that can be found at: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git >> core/isolation-v4 >> >> HEAD: cf4c55aad44251369c8507c3823f9f9c51d4dc77 >> >> Summary of changes: >> >> * Move the housekeeping code that was tied to NO_HZ to its own subsystem. >> Currently NO_HZ governs the other isolation features which is not right >> as dynticks is just an isolation feature like the others. We want to >> centralize the CPU isolation decisions to a subsystem of its own instead. >> >> * Integrate isolcpus code to housekeeping and treat it as a CPU isolation >> feature. >> >> * Reuse the "isolcpus=" kernel parameter to control the CPU isolation. >> For now only tick and domains can be isolated after this patchset: >> >> isolcpus=1-7 # isolate domains on CPU range 1 to 7 >> # "domain" flag is implicit by default to >> # keep the current behaviour >> >> isolcpus=domain,1-7 # do the same >> >> isolcpus=nohz,1-7 # apply nohz_full to CPU range 1 to 7 >> >> isolcpus=nohz,domain,1-7 # apply nohz_full and isolate domains of >> # CPU range 1 to 7 >> >> Thanks, >> Frederic >> --- >> >> Frederic Weisbecker (12): >> housekeeping: Move housekeeping related code to its own file >> watchdog: Use housekeeping_cpumask() instead of ad-hoc version >> housekeeping: Provide a dynamic off-case to housekeeping_any_cpu() >> housekeeping: Make housekeeping cpumask private >> housekeeping: Use its own static key >> housekeeping: Rename is_housekeeping_cpu to housekeeping_cpu >> housekeeping: Move it under its own config, independant from NO_HZ >> housekeeping: Introduce housekeeping flags >> housekeeping: Handle nohz_full= parameter >> housekeeping: Move isolcpus to housekeeping >> housekeeping: Add basic isolcpus flags >> housekeeping: Document isolcpus flags >> >> >> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 33 +++--- >> drivers/base/cpu.c | 11 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/tile/tilegx.c | 6 +- >> include/linux/housekeeping.h | 51 ++++++++ >> include/linux/sched.h | 2 - >> include/linux/tick.h | 39 +------ >> init/Kconfig | 7 ++ >> init/main.c | 2 + >> kernel/Makefile | 1 + >> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 15 +-- >> kernel/housekeeping.c | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +- >> kernel/rcu/update.c | 3 +- >> kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +--- >> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 +- >> kernel/sched/topology.c | 24 +--- >> kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 31 +---- >> kernel/watchdog.c | 13 +-- >> 18 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 142 deletions(-) > > Yeah, so while I agree that all this functionality needs to be factored > out and organized, I have a problem with this specific high level organization. > > The main problem I think is that it's all called "housekeeping", which is pretty > fuzzy and opaque. What does 'housekeeping' exactly mean? A dozen of details if you > look at the code - and this name does not make it much easier to think about this > whole problem category. Indeed I feel that housekeeping is probably not the best concept to express all these things. I'm all for something clearer. > > So how about introducing _two_ new high level concepts: > > 1) 'global time handling' > 2) 'double async CPU callbacks' > > The notion of 'global time' handling is obvious to everyone I think: it involves > the system-global guarantee that certain kernel jobs will be executed > periodically. At least one CPU in the system needs to handle 'global time'. > > The notion of 'double async CPU callbacks' is less obvious: it involves the action > of invoking a callback on a CPU, that might be executed on _another_ CPU. > > I.e. there are 3 CPUs involved: > > - the invoking CPU > - the target CPU > - the CPU(s!) that will handle the callback (the housekeeping CPU mask) > > For example the kmem-cache on_each_cpu() calls in mm/slab.c would fall into this > category. Hmm, I'm not clear on this one. Do you mean works that can be executed concurrently? > > I don't know to what extent it makes sense to formalize and unify these > facilities: it's certain that the (former) housekeeping CPU mask should be shared > by these two facilities: the CPU executing global time callbacks periodically > should be one of the CPUs that execute double-async CPU callbacks. > > But by separating all this functionality into these two categories, it's already > much easier to me to argue about which bit does what and why. Note that some housekeeping concepts may not fall into any of these categories. For example domain isolation. Thanks. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > > Ingo >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-01 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uvG4V-6Zi-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1742121 |
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Indeed I feel that housekeeping is probably not the best concept to express > all these things. I'm all for something clearer. Hmmm some ideas: OS maintenance tasks Delayed maintenance Supervisor OS Management
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web