On 23 April 2014 22:20, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/22/2014 03:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> This vmstat interrupt is disturbing my core isolation :), have you got >> any far with this patchset? > > You don't mean an interrupt, right? Sorry for not being clear enough. I meant the interruption caused due to these works. > The updates are done via the regular priority workqueue. > > I'm playing with isolation as well (has been more or less a background thing > for the last 6+ years). Our threads that run on the isolated cores are SCHED_FIFO > and therefor low prio workqueue stuff, like vmstat, doesn't get in the way. Initially I thought that's not enough. As there were queued with a delayed work and so a timer+work. Because there is a timer to fire, kernel wouldn't stop the tick for long with NO_HZ_FULL as get_next_timer_interrupt() wouldn't return KTIME_MAX. And so we will stop the tick for some time but will still queue a hrtimer after say 'n' seconds. But the clockevent device will have a max value of counter it is running and it will disturb isolation with a interrupt after end of counter, for me it is 90 seconds. BUT, it looks there is something else as well here. For the first time this theory would probably work, but because we wouldn't allow the work to run, the timer wouldn't get queued again. And so things will start working soon after. While writing this mail, I got another vision at this point. Because there will be one task running and another queued for the work, tick wouldn't be stopped (nr_running > 1) :( .. And so isolation wouldn't work again. @Frederic/Kevin: Did we ever had a discussion about stopping tick even if we have more than a task in queue but are SCHED_FIFO ? > I do have a few patches for the workqueues to make things better for isolation. Please share them, even if they aren't mainlinable. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>