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

[Yun Levi]

> > > > 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.

Yes. However what I said, nohz_full cpu isn't on null_domain
unless it was configured by cpusets.
even with option "nohz_full="

> > > 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.
>
> I fear you can yes, even though most users combine it with isolcpus. I
> know, that interface is terrible but it dates from times when we weren't
> sure about all the potential usecases of nohz_full. There was a possibility
> that HPC could just want to reduce ticks without all the hard and costly
> isolation around. But all the usecases I have witnessed so far in ten years
> involved wanting 0 noise after all...


If I make you annoyed I'm sorry in advance but let me clarify please.

1. In case of none-HK-TICK-housekeeping cpu (a.k.a nohz_full cpu),
    It should be on the null_domain. right?

2. If (1) is true, when none-HK-TICK is set, should it set none-HK-DOMAIN
    to prevent on any sched_domain (cpusets filter out none-HK-DOMAIN cpu)?

3. If (1) is true, Is HK_SCHED still necessary? There seems to be no use case
    and the check for this can be replaced by on_null_domain().

Many thanks!