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

[Philippe Bergheaud <felix@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 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.
Yes. This needs to be documented.

> 
>>>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?
Correct, I had not thought of that option.

> 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
> 
Thank you for the help. I will rework this.

Philippe