Re: [PATCH] powerpc: set default kernel thread priority to medium-low

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Philippe Bergheaud <felix@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: set default kernel thread priority to medium-low
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:22:18 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1386811338.12662.3.camel@concordia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52A83EBE.4060305@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 11:30 +0100, Philippe Bergheaud wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 17:29 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>It would be nice if you could make an assertion about what the state of HMT
> >>handling should be once your patch is applied.
> >>
> >>I think it's:
> >>
> >> * The kernel should use HMT_MEDIUM_LOW as it's "default" priority
> >> * The kernel should use HMT_LOW as it's "low" priority
> >>
> >>Which would imply:
> >>
> >> * The kernel should not use HMT_MEDIUM anywhere ..
> >> * Nor should it use any of the other higher HMT modes.
> >>
> >>Do you agree?

> Not entirely.  HT_MEDIUM might still be used by the kernel, in places where a
> priority higher than the default is required.

Right. But any code that currently uses HMT_MEDIUM is at the default level,
whereas once your patch is applied any code still using HMT_MEDIUM will be
boosted vs the default.

So any code that still uses HMT_MEDIUM after your patch seems like a bug to me.

> >>The reason I ask is I still see HMT_MEDIUM used in a few places, and it's not
> >>clear to me if that is correct.
> > 
> > 
> > HMT_MEDIUM used to be our default no ?

> Yes, but I am not sure that all references to HMT_MEDIUM were references to
> the default kernel priority.

What were they references to? Regardless they will now have the effect of
boosting the priority in those code sections. It would be good to understand,
and document, any places where we still use HMT_MEDIUM and why.

> > Also there's an open question... when doing things with interrupts off
> > (or worse, in real mode) such as some KVM hcalls etc... should we on the
> > contrary boost up to limit interrupt latency ?

> Yes. I think that there are cases when one should consider using HT_MEDIUM.

Or HIGH?

But let's not get side-tracked on that until we've got the default sorted.

> Shouldn't we define a new macro HMT_DEFAULT, to identify explicitely where
> the default priority is required?

That might help clarify things yes.

cheers