Re: [RFC PATCH 15/15] nohz_task: Procfs interface
[Posted December 20, 2010 by corbet]
| From: |
| Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl> |
| To: |
| Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec-AT-gmail.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [RFC PATCH 15/15] nohz_task: Procfs interface |
| Date: |
| Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:16:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <1292861799.5021.27.camel@laptop> |
| Cc: |
| LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs-AT-cn.fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton-AT-au1.ibm.com>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 16:57 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Should I?
Well yes, this interface of explicitly marking a task and cpu as
task_no_hz is kinda restrictive and useless.
When I run 4 cpu-bound tasks on a quad-core I shouldn't have to do
anything to benefit from this.
I don't see why having this cpumask is restricting you in any way,
user-space tasks don't migrate around, that all happens in kernel space.
Also, I'm not quite happy with the pure userspace restriction, but at
least I see why you did that event though you didn't mention that.
