Re: [PATCH v4] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full cpu becomes idle.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:20:08AM +0100, Yun Levi wrote:
> > None of that HK nonsense is relevant. The NOHZ_FULL nonsense implies
> > single CPU partitions, and *that* should be avoiding any and all
> > load-balancing.
> 
> Do you mean.. tick_nohz_full cpu (non-HK-ticked cpu) shouldn't belong
> to any sched_domain?

AFAIK NOHZ_FULL still hard relies on the isolcpus garbage, so yeah, it
should be all single cpu partitions, which don't have a domain.

(this really should migrate to use cpusets partitions)

> > If there still is, that's a bug, but that's not related to HK goo.
> >
> > As such, I don't think the HK_TYPE_SCHED check in
> > nohz_balance_enter_idle() actually makes sense, the on_null_omain()
> > check a little below that should already take care of things, no?
> 
> IIUC,
> currently, whether cpu belongs on domain or null is determined by
> HK_DOMAIN_FLAGS

No! you can create NULL domains without any of the HK nonsense. Both
isolcpus and cpusets can create single CPU partitions.

> However, when "nohz_full=" is used, it still on HK_DOMAIN, so it
> belongs to sched_domain
> so, it couldn't be filtered out by on_null_domain().
> 
> unless "isolcpus=domain" or "isolcpus={cpu_list}", it's on null domain.
> with "isolcpus=tick", it participates sched_domain.

Frederic ?!? You can use nohz_full without isolcpus? That makes no
sense. If you do that you get to keep the pieces.