Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] workqueue: avoiding unbounded wq on isolated CPUs by default | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:48:56 +0200 |
| |
On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 15:36 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:15:48PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do > > > this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too). > > > > I'm dead set against all this auto-presume nonsense fwtw Allocating a > > pool of no_hz_full _capable_ CPUs should not entice the kernel to make > > any rash assumptions. Let users do the button poking, they know what > > they want, and when they want it. > > We need to make a choice then. Either we do all the affinity tuning from > userspace with a common tool, which is what I had wished before everybody > asked for pre-settings.
Giving userspace what they need to do what they want seems right to me.
> Or we do it in the kernel, now we should define some kind of CONFIG_ISOLATION > to make that proper and rule the various kinds of isolation people are > interested in. > > But we can't leave it half-way like it is currently with everything preset on > top of nohz: rcu nocb mask, watchdog mask, cpu_isolation_map and exclude workqueue.
Yeah. Hell, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people really want this rigidity and hand-holding by the kernel, but it just seems dainbramaged to me. ATM, you pay a high price (the overhead) for the capability, but until that auto-assume isolcpus landed, those CPUs weren't forever more specialists, they were CPUs with an extra (costly) capability, could be disconnected/reconnected to load balancing on the fly, and used however the user saw fit.
I can imagine an auto-everything kernel having a bit of trouble with an SGI beast from hell. Too bad I don't have access to one, I'd try to boot a tune for maximum hand holding kernel.
-Mike
| |