Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > I'm worried about the proliferation of not easily separable > > config options. We already have way too many timer and > > scheduler options to begin with. > > Like Steve said, this is for overhead reasons. The syscall > uses the slow path so that's ok. But w

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-08 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Clark Williams wrote: > I was a little apprehensive when you started talking about multiple > tasks in Adaptive NOHZ mode on a core but the more I started thinking > about it, I realized that we might end up in a cooperative multitasking > mode with no tick at all going. Multip

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-08 Thread Clark Williams
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:53:17 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2013/2/7 Christoph Lameter : > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > >> Not with hrtick. > > > > hrtick? Did we not already try that a couple of years back and it turned > > out that the overhead of constantly reprogr

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-08 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 16:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > 2013/2/7 Christoph Lameter : > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > >> Not with hrtick. > > > > > > hrtick? Did we not already try that a couple of years back and i

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-08 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 16:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2013/2/7 Christoph Lameter : > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > >> Not with hrtick. > > > > hrtick? Did we not already try that a couple of years back and it turned > > out that the overhead of constantly reprogra

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-08 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/2/7 Christoph Lameter : > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> Not with hrtick. > > hrtick? Did we not already try that a couple of years back and it turned > out that the overhead of constantly reprogramming a timer via the PCI bus > was causing too much of a performance regres

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-08 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/2/7 Ingo Molnar : > > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> 2013/2/7 Ingo Molnar : >> > >> > * Steven Rostedt wrote: >> > >> >> I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. >> >> >> >> First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would >> >> be NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 19:14 +, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > Not with hrtick. > > hrtick? Did we not already try that a couple of years back and it turned > out that the overhead of constantly reprogramming a timer via the PCI bus > was causi

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > Not with hrtick. > > hrtick? Did we not already try that a couple of years back and > it turned out that the overhead of constantly reprogramming a > timer via the PCI bus was causing too much of a performance

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 20:07 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Could we just simplify things and make this an unconditional > option of NO_HZ? Any reason why we'd want to make this > configurable, other than debugging? I think the worry is the overhead that is required to keep it active. It requires t

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Not with hrtick. hrtick? Did we not already try that a couple of years back and it turned out that the overhead of constantly reprogramming a timer via the PCI bus was causing too much of a performance regression? -- To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2013/2/7 Ingo Molnar : > > > > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > >> I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. > >> > >> First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would > >> be NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_HZ_FULL when we > >> totally remove

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/2/7 Steven Rostedt : > On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 17:45 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> > >> > config NO_HZ_TASK >> > bool "Stop tick on specified CPUs when single task is running" >> > default n >> > depends on NO_HZ >> >> Ok I launched another debate about that sing

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:06:21PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 08:30 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > I suspect that removal of jiffies from the kernel will take a few stages, > > with RCU being one of the laggards for awhile. Making RCU's state > > machine depend who

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/2/7 Steven Rostedt : > On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 17:41 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> I'm not convinced that "single task" must be a fundamental component >> of this. It's an implementation detail. We should be able to keep the >> tick off in the future when more than one task are on the r

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 08:30 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > I suspect that removal of jiffies from the kernel will take a few stages, > with RCU being one of the laggards for awhile. Making RCU's state > machine depend wholly on process-based execution will take some care > and experimentation,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 17:45 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > config NO_HZ_TASK > > bool "Stop tick on specified CPUs when single task is running" > > default n > > depends on NO_HZ > > Ok I launched another debate about that single task thing. I wish we > don't ma

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 17:41 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > I'm not convinced that "single task" must be a fundamental component > of this. It's an implementation detail. We should be able to keep the > tick off in the future when more than one task are on the runqueue and > hrtick is on. May

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:12:00AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 12:10 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. > > > > > > First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would > > > be NO_HZ_C

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/2/7 Steven Rostedt : > On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 17:25 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> At least for now we seem to agree on CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE and keep >> CONFIG_NO_HZ for compatibility. Are you ok with that? If so I'll send >> a patch. > > I believe that Ingo was suggesting to have CONFIG_N

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/2/7 Steven Rostedt : > I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. > > First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would be > NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_HZ_FULL when we totally remove > jiffies :-) I'm not sure we'll ever be able to completely remove the tick, even i

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 17:25 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > At least for now we seem to agree on CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE and keep > CONFIG_NO_HZ for compatibility. Are you ok with that? If so I'll send > a patch. I believe that Ingo was suggesting to have CONFIG_NO_HZ give options to what type of c

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/2/7 Ingo Molnar : > > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. >> >> First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would >> be NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_HZ_FULL when we >> totally remove jiffies :-) > > I don't think we want yet another

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 12:10 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. > > > > First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would > > be NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_HZ_FULL when we > > totally remove jiffies :-)

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Agreed? Yes and please also change the texts in Kconfig to accurately describe what happens to the timer tick. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo i

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-07 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Steven Rostedt wrote: > I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. > > First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would > be NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_HZ_FULL when we > totally remove jiffies :-) I don't think we want yet another config option named in a weird

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
I'll reply to this as I come up with comments. First thing is, don't call it NO_HZ_FULL. A better name would be NO_HZ_CPU. I would like to reserve NO_HZ_FULL when we totally remove jiffies :-) And the kconfig help should probably call it "Adaptive tickless" or "Tickless for single tasks". The ful

[ANNOUNCE] 3.8-rc6-nohz4

2013-02-06 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
Hi, The support for printk and cputime accounting to work on full dynticks CPUs have been merged in -tip tree and is likely deemed for the 3.9 merge window. So this new release is a rebase against the relevant branches in -tip and v3.8-rc6. The remaining amount of patches has thus quite schrinked