All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com,
	luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuset: Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:06:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f0fca497-e4e7-3dbd-1e5c-a7f502c05dcb@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180309221736.GB5926@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 03/09/2018 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
>> the system. The cpuset controller does look at that value and make
>> adjustment accordingly, but it has no dependence on exclusive cpu/mem
>> features of cpuset.
> The isolcpus= boot param is donkey shit and needs to die. cpuset _used_
> to be able to fully replace it, but with the advent of cgroup 'feature'
> this got lost.
>
> And instead of fixing it, you're making it _far_ worse. You completely
> removed all the bits that allow repartitioning the scheduler domains.
>
> Mike is completely right, full NAK on any such approach.

So you are talking about sched_relax_domain_level and
sched_load_balance. I have not removed any bits. I just haven't exposed
them yet. It does seem like these 2 control knobs are useful from the
scheduling perspective. Do we also need cpu_exclusive or just the two
sched control knobs are enough?

Cheers,
Longman

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com,
	luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuset: Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:06:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f0fca497-e4e7-3dbd-1e5c-a7f502c05dcb@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180309221736.GB5926@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 03/09/2018 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of
>> the system. The cpuset controller does look at that value and make
>> adjustment accordingly, but it has no dependence on exclusive cpu/mem
>> features of cpuset.
> The isolcpus= boot param is donkey shit and needs to die. cpuset _used_
> to be able to fully replace it, but with the advent of cgroup 'feature'
> this got lost.
>
> And instead of fixing it, you're making it _far_ worse. You completely
> removed all the bits that allow repartitioning the scheduler domains.
>
> Mike is completely right, full NAK on any such approach.

So you are talking about sched_relax_domain_level and
sched_load_balance. I have not removed any bits. I just haven't exposed
them yet. It does seem like these 2 control knobs are useful from the
scheduling perspective. Do we also need cpu_exclusive or just the two
sched control knobs are enough?

Cheers,
Longman


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-09 23:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-09 15:35 [PATCH v4] cpuset: Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy Waiman Long
2018-03-09 15:35 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 16:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 16:34   ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 17:23   ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 17:23     ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 17:45   ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 17:45     ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 18:17     ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 18:17       ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 18:20       ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 18:20         ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 18:20         ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 19:40         ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 19:40           ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-09 20:43           ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 20:43             ` Waiman Long
2018-03-09 22:17             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-09 22:17               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-09 23:06               ` Waiman Long [this message]
2018-03-09 23:06                 ` Waiman Long
2018-03-10  3:47                 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-10  3:47                   ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-14 19:57                   ` Tejun Heo
2018-03-14 19:57                     ` Tejun Heo
2018-03-15  2:49                     ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-15  2:49                       ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-19 15:34                       ` Tejun Heo
2018-03-19 15:34                         ` Tejun Heo
2018-03-19 20:49                         ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-19 20:49                           ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-19 21:41                           ` Waiman Long
2018-03-19 21:41                             ` Waiman Long
2018-03-20  4:25                             ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-20  4:25                               ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-10 13:16                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-10 13:16                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-12 14:20                   ` Waiman Long
2018-03-12 14:20                     ` Waiman Long
2018-03-12 15:21                     ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-12 15:21                       ` Mike Galbraith

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f0fca497-e4e7-3dbd-1e5c-a7f502c05dcb@redhat.com \
    --to=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.