> From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:20 AM > To: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Andrew Morton; Chris Metcalf; Steven Rostedt; Gilad Ben Yossef; Ingo > Molnar; Peter Zijlstra; Rik van Riel; Tejun Heo; Frederic Weisbecker; > Thomas Gleixner; Paul E. McKenney; Christoph Lameter; Srivatsa S. Bhat; > linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] support "dataplane" mode for nohz_full > > On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 09:05 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 8 May 2015 19:11:10 -0400 Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/8/2015 5:22 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 8 May 2015 14:18:24 -0700 > > > > > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, 8 May 2015 13:58:41 -0400 Chris Metcalf > <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> A prctl() option (PR_SET_DATAPLANE) is added > > > > >> Dumb question: what does the term "dataplane" mean in this > context? I > > > > >> can't see the relationship between those words and what this > patch > > > > >> does. > > > > > I was thinking the same thing. I haven't gotten around to > searching > > > > > DATAPLANE yet. > > > > > > > > > > I would assume we want a name that is more meaningful for what is > > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > The text in the commit message and the 0/6 cover letter do try to > explain > > > > the concept. The terminology comes, I think, from networking line > cards, > > > > where the "dataplane" is the part of the application that handles > all the > > > > fast path processing of network packets, and the "control plane" is > the part > > > > that handles routing updates, etc., generally slow-path stuff. I've > probably > > > > just been using the terms so long they seem normal to me. > > > > > > > > That said, what would be clearer? NO_HZ_STRICT as a superset of > > > > NO_HZ_FULL? Or move away from the NO_HZ terminology a bit; after > all, > > > > we're talking about no interrupts of any kind, and maybe NO_HZ is > too > > > > limited in scope? So, NO_INTERRUPTS? USERSPACE_ONLY? Or look > > > > to vendors who ship bare-metal runtimes and call it BARE_METAL? > > > > Borrow the Tilera marketing name and call it ZERO_OVERHEAD? > > > > > > > > Maybe BARE_METAL seems most plausible -- after DATAPLANE, to me, > > > > of course :-) > > > > 'baremetal' has uses in virtualization speak, so I think that would be > > confusing. > > > > > I like NO_INTERRUPTS. Simple, direct. > > > > NO_HZ_PURE? > > Hm, coke light, coke zero... OS_LIGHT and OS_ZERO? LOL... you forgot OS_CLASSIC for backwards compatibility :-) How about TASK_SOLO? Yes, you are trying to achieve the least amount of interference but the bigger context is about monopolizing a single CPU for yourself. Anyway it is worth pointing out that while NO_HZ_FULL is very useful in conjunction with this turning the tick off is useful also if you have multiple tasks runnable (e.g. if you know you only need to context switch in 100 ms, why keep a periodic interrupt running?) even though we don't support it *right now*. It might be a good idea not to entangle these concepts too much. Gilad Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Software Architect EZchip Technologies Ltd. 37 Israel Pollak Ave, Kiryat Gat 82025 ,Israel Tel: +972-4-959-6666 ext. 576, Fax: +972-8-681-1483 Mobile: +972-52-826-0388, US Mobile: +1-973-826-0388 Email: giladb@xxxxxxxxxx, Web: http://www.ezchip.com ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
