lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Allow CPU0 to be nohz full
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 07:21:54PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner's on April 6, 2019 3:54 am:
> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> Thomas Gleixner's on April 5, 2019 12:36 am:
> >> > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I've been looking at ways to fix suspend breakage with CPU0 as a
> >> >> nohz CPU. I started looking at various things like allowing CPU0
> >> >> to take over do_timer again temporarily or allowing nohz full
> >> >> to be stopped at runtime (that is quite a significant change for
> >> >> little real benefit). The problem then was having the housekeeping
> >> >> CPU go offline.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I decided to try just allowing the freeze to occur on non-zero
> >> >> CPU. This seems to be a lot simpler to get working, but I guess
> >> >> some archs won't be able to deal with this? Would it be okay to
> >> >> make it opt-in per arch?
> >> >
> >> > It needs to be opt in. x86 will fall on its nose with that.
> >>
> >> Okay I can add that.
> >>
> >> > Now the real interesting question is WHY do we need that at all?
> >>
> >> Why full nohz for CPU0? Basically this is how their job system was
> >> written and used, testing nohz full was a change that came much later
> >> as an optimisation.
> >>
> >> I don't think there is a fundamental reason an equivalent system
> >> could not be made that uses a different CPU for housekeeping, but I
> >> was assured the change would be quite difficult for them.
> >>
> >> If we can support it, it seems nice if you can take a particular
> >> configuration and just apply nohz_full to your application processors
> >> without any other changes.
> >
> > This wants an explanation in the patches.
>
> Okay.
>
> > And patch 4 has in the changelog:
> >
> > nohz_full has been successful at significantly reducing jitter for a
> > large supercomputer customer, but their job control system requires CPU0
> > to be for housekeeping.
> >
> > which just makes me dazed and confused :)
> >
> > Other than some coherent explanation and making it opt in, I don't think
> > there is a fundamental issue with that.
>
> I will try to make the changelogs less jibberish then :)

Maybe this is all taken care of now, but do the various clocks stay
synchronized with wall-clock time if all CPUs are in nohz_full mode?
At one time, at least one CPU needed to keep its scheduler-clock
interrupt going in order to keep things in sync.

The ppc timebase register might make it possible to do this without any
scheduler-clock interrupts, but figured I should check. ;-)

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-11 17:43    [W:0.075 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site