LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Max Krasnyanskiy <>
To: Steven Rostedt <>
Cc: Paul Jackson <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:46:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:59:10AM -0600, Paul Jackson wrote:
>> Thanks for the CC, Peter.
> Thanks from me too.
>> Max wrote:
>>> We've had scheduler support for CPU isolation ever since O(1) scheduler went it. 
>>> I'd like to extend it further to avoid kernel activity on those CPUs as much as possible.
>> I recently added the per-cpuset flag 'sched_load_balance' for some
>> other realtime folks, so that they can disable the kernel scheduler
>> load balancing on isolated CPUs.  It essentially allows for dynamic
>> control of which CPUs are isolated by the scheduler, using the cpuset
>> hierarchy, rather than enhancing the 'isolated_cpus' mask.   That
>> 'isolated_cpus' mask remained a minimal kernel boottime parameter.
>> I believe this went to Linus's tree about Oct 2007.
>> It looks like you have three additional tweaks for realtime in this
>> patch set, with your patches:
>>   [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Do not route IRQs to the CPUs isolated at boot
> I didn't know we still routed IRQs to isolated CPUs. I guess I need to
> look deeper into the code on this one. But I agree that isolated CPUs
> should not have IRQs routed to them.
Also note that it's just a convenience feature. In other words it's not that with this patch
we'll never route IRQs to those CPUs. They can still be explicitly routed by writing to 

>>   [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Support for workqueue isolation
> The thing about workqueues is that they should only be woken on a CPU if
> something on that CPU accessed them. IOW, the workqueue on a CPU handles
> work that was called by something on that CPU. Which means that
> something that high prio task did triggered a workqueue to do some work.
> But this can also be triggered by interrupts, so by keeping interrupts
> off the CPU no workqueue should be activated.
No no no. That's what I though too ;-). The problem is that things like NFS and friends
expect _all_ their workqueue threads to report back when they do certain things like
flushing buffers and stuff. The reason I added this is because my machines were getting
stuck because CPU0 was waiting for CPU1 to run NFS work queue threads even though no IRQs
or other things are running on it.
>>   [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Isolated CPUs should be ignored by the "stop machine"
> This I find very dangerous. We are making an assumption that tasks on an
> isolated CPU wont be doing things that stopmachine requires. What stops
> a task on an isolated CPU from calling something into the kernel that
> stop_machine requires to halt?
I agree in general. The thing is though that stop machine just kills any kind of latency 
guaranties. Without the patch the machine just hangs waiting for the stop-machine to run
when module is inserted/removed. And running without dynamic module loading is not very 
practical on general purpose machines. So I'd rather have an option with a big red warning 
than no option at all :).


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-01-28 18:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-28  4:09 maxk
2008-01-28  4:09 ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Add config options for CPU isolation maxk
2008-01-28  4:09   ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Export CPU isolation bits maxk
2008-01-28  4:09     ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Do not route IRQs to the CPUs isolated at boot maxk
2008-01-28  4:09       ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Support for workqueue isolation maxk
2008-01-28  4:09         ` [PATCH] [CPUISOL] Isolated CPUs should be ignored by the "stop machine" maxk
2008-01-28  9:08 ` [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-28 14:59   ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-28 16:34     ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-28 16:44       ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-28 18:54         ` Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-01-28 18:46       ` Max Krasnyanskiy [this message]
2008-01-28 19:00         ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-28 20:22           ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-28 21:42             ` Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-02-05  0:32             ` CPU isolation and workqueues [was Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions] Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-01-28 18:37     ` [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-01-28 19:06       ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-28 21:47         ` Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-01-31 19:06         ` Integrating cpusets and cpu isolation [was Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions] Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-02-02  6:16           ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-03  5:57             ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-02-03  7:53               ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-04  6:03                 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-02-04 10:54                   ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-04 23:19                     ` Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-02-05  2:46                       ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05  4:08                         ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-01-28 18:32   ` [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-01-28 19:10     ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-28 23:41     ` Daniel Walker
2008-01-29  0:12       ` Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-01-29  1:33         ` Daniel Walker
2008-02-04  6:53           ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-01-31 12:16 ` Mark Hounschell
2008-01-31 19:13   ` Max Krasnyanskiy

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).