Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched,time: call __acct_update_integrals once a jiffy

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 06:53:05PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 15:20 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:43:28PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > > Run times for the microbenchmark:
> > > 
> > > 4.4                             3.8 seconds
> > > 4.5-rc1                         3.7 seconds
> > > 4.5-rc1 + first patch           3.3 seconds
> > > 4.5-rc1 + both patches          2.3 seconds
> > 
> > Very nice improvement!
> 
> Tasty indeed.
> 
> When nohz_full CPUs are not isolated, ie are being used as generic
> CPUs, get_nohz_timer_target() is a problem with things like tbench.

So by isolated CPU you mean those part of isolcpus= boot option, right?

> 
> tbench 8 with Rik's patches applied:
> nohz_full=empty
> Throughput 3204.69 MB/sec  1.000
> nohz_full=1-3,5-7 
> Throughput 1354.99 MB/sec   .422  1.000
> nohz_full=1-3,5-7 + club below 
> Throughput 2762.22 MB/sec   .861  2.038
> 
> With Rik's patches and a club, tbench becomes nearly acceptable.
> ---
>  include/linux/tick.h |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/include/linux/tick.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tick.h
> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *hous
>  static inline bool is_housekeeping_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
> -	if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
> +	if (tick_nohz_full_enabled() && runqueue_is_isolated(cpu))
>  		return cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, housekeeping_mask);

This makes me confused. How forcing timers to CPUs in isolcpus is making
better results?

>  #endif
>  	return true;