On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:28:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Is this a best practice documented anywhere or it just happens to be > > > the case with workloads you deal with? > > > > Option 2. However Frederic seems interested in matching the exported > > toggles with the known use-cases classes. > > > > For example, for this guide: > > http://www.comfilewiki.co.kr/en/doku.php?id=comfilepi:improving_real-time_performance:index > > > > Using nohz_full= would be a benefit (and its not being currently set, > > perhaps due to not knowing all the options?). > > > > http://www.comfilewiki.co.kr/en/doku.php?id=comfilepi:improving_real-time_performance:index > > > > > > AFAIU the workloads for which disabling nohz_full= is a benefit are those > > where the switching between nohz full mode and sched tick enabled mode > > and vice-versa (which involve programming the local timer) happens > > often and is therefore avoidable? For example switching between 1 > > runnable task and more than 1 runnable task (and vice versa). > > The patch from Frederic is testing for both. You seem to be arguing to > reduce the test and I still do not understand why. Sure some workloads > (following the above) will likely use nohz_full= as well but does it > make sense to build that expectation into the higher level logic? What > is an actual benefit? Just thinking of simpler code. Feel free to maintain the patch as-is if you see fit.
