lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/32] [RFC] nohz/cpuset: Start discussions on nohz CPUs
On 11/02/2012 03:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:23 +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>
>>> A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
>>> how to implement nohz cpusets. Where you can add a task to a cpuset
>>> and mark the set to be 'nohz'. When the task runs on a CPU and is
>>> the only task scheduled (nr_running == 1), the tick will stop.
>>> The idea is to give the task the least amount of kernel interference
>>> as possible. If the task doesn't do any system calls (and possibly
>>> even if it does), no timer interrupt will bother it. By using
>>> isocpus and nohz cpuset, a task would be able to achieve true cpu
>>> isolation.
>>

One other aspect that this patch probably needs to address is the cache
localization of irq spinlocks.

At least in 3.6, with !CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
--
struct irq_desc irq_desc[NR_IRQS] __cacheline_aligned_in_smp = {
[0 ... NR_IRQS-1] = {
.handle_irq = handle_bad_irq,
.depth = 1,
.lock = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(irq_desc->lock),
}
};
--

You are likely to get a cache miss in the top half of your low latency
CPU anytime some other CPU has taken a spinlock which lies within the
same cache line.

Or is my understanding of the __cacheline_aligned_in_smp declaration wrong ?

Br,
David



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-02 16:21    [W:0.069 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site