Messages in this thread | | | From | "Li,Rongqing" <> | Subject | 答复: [PATCH] sched/isolation: allow isolcpus and nohz full for different cpus | Date | Tue, 21 Apr 2020 01:35:41 +0000 |
| |
> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Frederic Weisbecker [mailto:frederic@kernel.org] > 发送时间: 2020年4月21日 0:34 > 收件人: Li,Rongqing <lirongqing@baidu.com> > 抄送: peterz@infradead.org; tglx@linutronix.de; mingo@kernel.org; > srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 主题: Re: [PATCH] sched/isolation: allow isolcpus and nohz_full for different > cpus > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 04:51:18PM +0800, Li RongQing wrote: > > when both isolcpus and nohz_full are set, their cpus must be same now, > > in fact isolcpus and nohz_full are not related, and different cpus are > > expected for some cases, for example, some cores for polling threads > > wants to isolcpus, and some cores for dedicated threads, only > > nohz_full is expected > > > > so define two housekeeping mask to save these two configuration > > separately and make cpus same only when both nohz_full and isolcpus > > with nohz are passed into kernel > > > > fix a build error when CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK is not configured > > reported by kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> > > What is the usecase when you want to affine managed interrupt? > Do you only want to affine IRQ or do you also want to affine every unbound > work, such as kthread, workqueues, timers, etc...? >
As cloud compute node, both qemu and ovs-dpdk run on it
Some cores are bound to run ovs-dpdk, and should be isolated from any disturb (isolcpus= nohz_full= rcu_nocbs= )
Other cores run kvm qemu, and do not wants to be disturbed by hrtimer (only nohz_full=) by using this feature https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11033533/
Thanks
-LiRongQing
> In the end I would like to group the isolation features that only make sense > together. So we could end up with three cpumasks, one for "domains", one for > "nohz" and one for all "unbound" works. > > In fact "domains" should even disappear and become "unbound" + > "load_balance", as that's the desired outcome of having NULL domains. > > I'm trying to prepare a suitable interface for all that in cpusets where we > already have the load_balance part. > > Thanks.
| |