Re: [PATCH documentation 2/2] kthread: Document ways of reducing OSjitter due to per-CPU kthreads
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Thu Apr 25 2013 - 16:59:30 EST
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:23:12PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:03:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > +Name: ehca_comp/%u
> > > > > +Purpose: Periodically process Infiniband-related work.
> > > > > +To reduce corresponding OS jitter, do any of the following:
> > > > > +1. Don't use EHCA Infiniband hardware. This will prevent these
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like this particular hardware is slow and its IRQ handler/softirq
> > > > needs a lot of time. Yes, no?
> > > >
> > > > Can we have a reason why people shouldn't use that hw.
> > >
> > > Because it has per-CPU kthreads that can cause OS jitter. ;-)
> > Yeah, I stumbled over this specific brand of Infiniband hw. It looks
> > like this particular Infiniband driver uses per-CPU kthreads and the
> > others in drivers/infiniband/hw/ don't?
> > I hope this explains my head-scratching moment here...
> Ah! I rewrote the first sentence to read:
> Don't use eHCA Infiniband hardware, instead choosing hardware
> that does not require per-CPU kthreads.
Another option would be to teach that eHCA driver to be configurable
on which cpus kthreads are desired and on which not. I can't see a
reason (aside of throughput) why that hardware can't cope with a
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/