Re: softclock swis not bound to specific cpu

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Ivan Voras wrote:

>>>> I noticed that the softclock threads didn't seem to be bound to any cpu.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure whether it's the Right Thing (TM) to bind them to the 
>>>> corresponding cpus though: it might be good to give the scheduler a 
>>>> chance to rebalance callouts.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm about to test the modification like the attached diff. Comments are 
>>>> welcome.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I think the intent is that they have a "soft" affinity to the CPU 
>>> where the lapic timer is firing, but not a hard binding, allowing them to 
>>> migrate if required.  It would be interesting to measure how effective 
>>> that soft affinity is in practice under various loads -- presumably the 
>>> goal would be for the softclock thread to migrate if a higher (lower) 
>>> priority thread is hogging the CPU.
>> 
>> So why are there NCPU softclock threads if the binding isn't important?
>
> Nevermind, I got it - they are not used only for "clock".

Using a soft affinity system encourages cache locality and load balancing, but 
allows the scheduler to compensate for occasional (or endemic) imbalance by 
placing work on other CPUs.  A hard affinity system (in which the scheduler 
isn't allowed to do that) is potentially less adaptive in that regard. 
Obviously, there are lots of tradeoffs, but allowing ithreads and swis to 
wander if it turns out interrupt load (or callout scheduling, for that matter) 
isn't nicely balanced seems a reasonable design choice to me.  What might be 
nice is a version of wakeup() hinting at a strong data flow between two 
threads, as a hint to the scheduler that maintaining CPU affinity has extra 
value, vs a version of wakeup() that hints at minimal data flow in which case 
there's reduced benefit to establishing share affinity.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge