From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com,
luto@amacapital.net, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched.load_balance flag to v2
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 17:20:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180531152050.GK12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42cc1f44-2355-1c0c-b575-49c863303c42@redhat.com>
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 09:54:27AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/31/2018 08:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I still find all that a bit weird.
> >
> > So load_balance=0 basically changes a partition into a
> > 'fully-partitioned partition' with the seemingly random side-effect that
> > now sub-partitions are allowed to consume all CPUs.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should allow sub-partition to consume all the
> CPUs no matter the load balance state? I can live with that if you think
> it is more logical.
I'm on the fence myself; the only thing I'm fairly sure of is that tying
this particular behaviour to the load-balance knob seems off.
> > The rationale, only given in the Changelog above, seems to be to allow
> > 'easy' emulation of isolcpus.
> >
> > I'm still not convinced this is a useful knob to have. You can do
> > fully-partitioned by simply creating a lot of 1 cpu parititions.
>
> That is certainly true. However, I think there are some additional
> overhead in the scheduler side in maintaining those 1-cpu partitions. Right?
cpuset-controller as such doesn't have much overhead scheduler wise,
cpu-controller OTOH does, and there depth is the predominant factor, so
many sibling groups should not matter there either.
> > So this one knob does two separate things, both of which seem, to me,
> > redundant.
> >
> > Can we please get better rationale for this?
>
> I am fine getting rid of the load_balance flag if this is the consensus.
> However, we do need to come up with a good migration story for those
> users that need the isolcpus capability. I think Mike was the one asking
> for supporting isolcpus. So Mike, what is your take on that.
So I don't strictly mind having a knob that does the 'fully-partitioned
partition' thing -- however odd that sounds -- but I feel we should have
a solid use-case for it.
I also think we should not mix the 'consume all' thing with the
'fully-partitioned' thing, as they are otherwise unrelated.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-31 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-29 13:41 [PATCH v9 0/7] Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy Waiman Long
2018-05-29 13:41 ` [PATCH v9 1/7] cpuset: " Waiman Long
2018-05-29 13:41 ` [PATCH v9 2/7] cpuset: Add new v2 cpuset.sched.domain_root flag Waiman Long
2018-05-30 14:18 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-30 14:57 ` Waiman Long
2018-05-31 9:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-29 13:41 ` [PATCH v9 3/7] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched.load_balance flag to v2 Waiman Long
2018-05-31 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-31 10:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-31 13:36 ` Waiman Long
2018-05-31 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-31 13:54 ` Waiman Long
2018-05-31 15:20 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-05-31 15:36 ` Waiman Long
2018-05-31 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-31 16:42 ` Waiman Long
2018-06-20 14:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-21 7:40 ` Waiman Long
2018-05-29 13:41 ` [PATCH v9 4/7] cpuset: Make generate_sched_domains() recognize isolated_cpus Waiman Long
2018-05-29 13:41 ` [PATCH v9 5/7] cpuset: Expose cpus.effective and mems.effective on cgroup v2 root Waiman Long
2018-05-29 13:41 ` [PATCH v9 6/7] cpuset: Don't rebuild sched domains if cpu changes in non-domain root Waiman Long
2018-05-29 13:41 ` [PATCH v9 7/7] cpuset: Allow reporting of sched domain generation info Waiman Long
2018-05-30 10:13 ` [PATCH v9 0/7] Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy Juri Lelli
2018-05-30 12:56 ` Waiman Long
2018-05-30 13:05 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-30 13:47 ` Waiman Long
2018-05-30 13:52 ` Juri Lelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180531152050.GK12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®