Re: [PATCH 07/32] cpuset: Set up interface for nohz flag

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:26 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: 
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > > > We use here a per cpu refcounter. As long as a CPU
> > > > is contained into at least one cpuset that has the
> > > > nohz flag set, it is part of the set of CPUs that
> > > > run into adaptive nohz mode.
> > >
> > > What are the drawbacks for nohz?
> >
> > For nohz in general, latency.  To make it at all usable for rt loads, I
> 
> Well nohz while a process is running on a dedicated cpu means the cpu is
> running full power and no disruptions occur. This is a tremendous benefit.

In the context of single task burning in userspace, you bet.

> Less than 10us jitter can alrady be accomplished by building a kernel with
> certain options off (like for example preemption...) and ensuring that
> stuff stays off certain processors. Lets not confuse realtime with low
> latency. Real time in the sense of deterministic execution is bad for
> latency because overhead is added to ensure the determinism which
> increases latency.

Yeah, I know RT pays heavily for determinism.  It loses on best case.

> > of the current box, triple digit for simple synchronized frame timers +
> > compute worker-bees load on 64 cores.  Patch 4 probably helps that, but
> > don't _think_ it'll fix it.  If you (currently) ever become balancer,
> > you're latency target is smoking wreckage.
> 
> Yes so we need something to tell the system which cpu is the sacrificial
> lamb that will not run low latency applications.

Definitely a lamb is required.

(This set is targeted at HPC, so I'll shut up now.. but RT is HPC too)

-Mike