From: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Holger.Wolf@de.ibm.com, epasch@de.ibm.com,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot add/remove
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B0EAC06.3010407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1259252382.31676.207.camel@laptop>
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 17:10 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>
>> What I consider more important at the moment is that there is no hook to
>> recalculate these values in case cpu hot add/remove takes place.
>> As an example someone could boot a machine with one online cpu and get
>> the low non scaled defaults, later on driven by load the system
>> activates more and more processors. Therefore the system could end up
>> having a large amount of cpus with non recalculated scheduler tunables.
>>
>
> This is virt junk that's playing dumb games with hotplug isn't it?
>
Some sort of, its on s390 which does that all the time. By default there
is a daemon that activates/deactivates cpus according to load to cover
load peaks but also save virtualization overhead.
> Normal machines simply don't change their numbers of cpus, if they
> hotplug its usually for things like suspend or actual replacement of a
> faulty piece of kit, in which case there's little point in adjusting
> things.
>
>
What is still "normal" today, you cant get s390 without virt so I would
consider it normal and a real use case for us :-)
> Aside from that, we probably should put an upper limit in place, as I
> guess large cpu count machines get silly large values
I agree to that, but in the code is already an upper limit of
200.000.000 - well we might discuss if that is too low/high.
--
Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, Open Virtualization
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-26 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-26 16:10 Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 16:25 ` Christian Ehrhardt [this message]
2009-11-26 16:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 16:31 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 16:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 18:39 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 18:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-03 9:12 ` Pavel Machek
2009-12-03 9:31 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2009-11-26 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=4B0EAC06.3010407@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Holger.Wolf@de.ibm.com \
--cc=epasch@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome