Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1271216
| From | "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry |
| Date | 2015-11-17 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvONZ-5HC-45@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <qvEEV-7mW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvEEV-7mW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvGGK-zE-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvLGp-3Ky-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvO1A-58e-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:57:21AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:24:49 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:04:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:57:14PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > On 11/16/2015 6:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > >Fair point. When in the five-jiffy throttling state, what can > > > > >wake up a CPU? In an earlier version of this proposal, the > > > > >answer was "nothing", but maybe that has changed. > > > > > > > > device interrupts are likely to wake the cpus. > > > > > > OK, that I cannot help you with. But presumably if the interrupt > > > handler does a wakeup (or similar), that is deferred to the end of > > > the throttling interval? Timers are also deferred, including > > > hrtimers? > > > > This throttling thing only throttles 'normal' tasks, real-time tasks > > will still run. Heh! Then RCU will be delayed or not based on the priority of the grace-period kthreads and softirqd. ;-) In addition, this does sound like an excellent test for priority-inversion situations that might otherwise go unnoticed on overprovisioned systems. That said, I would expect many types of real-time systems to configure voltage, frequency, and cooling so as to avoid thermal throttling. > As an optimization or option, it might be useful to further defer the > next timer interrupt if it falls within the idle injection period. But > I guess we don't know if that timer belongs to a normal task or rt. > Also we there could be more than one 'next' timer interrupts fall into > that injection idle period. Understood. This brings me back to my recommendation that throttling select RCU_FAST_NO_HZ unless RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL is already set. Thanx, Paul -- 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 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-11-16 16:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-16 23:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-11-16 23:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-17 01:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-19 18:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-19 20:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-19 20:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-19 21:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-20 00:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-16 23:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-17 00:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-17 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-17 00:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-17 00:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-17 00:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-17 01:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2015-11-16 23:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-17 00:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2015-11-17 02:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-17 04:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-17 06:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-17 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-17 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-17 14:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-17 04:00 +0100
csiph-web