All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	frederic@kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, abelits@marvell.com,
	bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	davem@davemloft.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	sfr@canb.auug.org.au, stephen@networkplumber.org,
	rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jinyuqi@huawei.com,
	zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:35:35 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3f138a52-7e6a-2c40-23f7-33515893a178@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210128165903.GB38339@fuller.cnet>


On 1/28/21 11:59 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 05:02:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27 2021 at 09:19, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:57:16AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>> +	hk_flags = HK_FLAG_DOMAIN | HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ;
>>>>> +	mask = housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);
>>>> AFAICS, this generally resolves to something based on cpu_possible_mask
>>>> rather than cpu_online_mask as before, so could now potentially return an
>>>> offline CPU. Was that an intentional change?
>>> Robin,
>>>
>>> AFAICS online CPUs should be filtered.
>> The whole pile wants to be reverted. It's simply broken in several ways.
> I was asking for your comments on interaction with CPU hotplug :-)
> Anyway...
>
> So housekeeping_cpumask has multiple meanings. In this case:
>
> HK_FLAG_DOMAIN | HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ
>
>      domain
>        Isolate from the general SMP balancing and scheduling
>        algorithms. Note that performing domain isolation this way
>        is irreversible: it's not possible to bring back a CPU to
>        the domains once isolated through isolcpus. It's strongly
>        advised to use cpusets instead to disable scheduler load
>        balancing through the "cpuset.sched_load_balance" file.
>        It offers a much more flexible interface where CPUs can
>        move in and out of an isolated set anytime.
>
>        You can move a process onto or off an "isolated" CPU via
>        the CPU affinity syscalls or cpuset.
>        <cpu number> begins at 0 and the maximum value is
>        "number of CPUs in system - 1".
>
>      managed_irq
>
>        Isolate from being targeted by managed interrupts
>        which have an interrupt mask containing isolated
>        CPUs. The affinity of managed interrupts is
>        handled by the kernel and cannot be changed via
>        the /proc/irq/* interfaces.
>
>        This isolation is best effort and only effective
>        if the automatically assigned interrupt mask of a
>        device queue contains isolated and housekeeping
>        CPUs. If housekeeping CPUs are online then such
>        interrupts are directed to the housekeeping CPU
>        so that IO submitted on the housekeeping CPU
>        cannot disturb the isolated CPU.
>
>        If a queue's affinity mask contains only isolated
>        CPUs then this parameter has no effect on the
>        interrupt routing decision, though interrupts are
>        only delivered when tasks running on those
>        isolated CPUs submit IO. IO submitted on
>        housekeeping CPUs has no influence on those
>        queues.
>
> So as long as the meaning of the flags are respected, seems
> alright.
>
> Nitesh, is there anything preventing this from being fixed
> in userspace ? (as Thomas suggested previously).

I think it should be doable atleast for most of the devices.
However, I do wonder if there is a better way of fixing this generically
from the kernel?

Currently, as Thomas mentioned housekeeping_cpumask() is used at different
locations just to fix the issue corresponding to that component or driver.

-- 
Thanks
Nitesh


  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-28 17:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-25 22:34 [PATCH v4 0/3] Preventing job distribution to isolated CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-25 22:34 ` [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-29 16:11   ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-07-01  0:32     ` Andrew Morton
2020-07-01  0:47       ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-07-09  8:45   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Alex Belits
2021-01-27 11:57   ` [Patch v4 1/3] " Robin Murphy
2021-01-27 12:19     ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-27 12:36       ` Robin Murphy
2021-01-27 13:09         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-27 13:49           ` Robin Murphy
2021-01-27 14:16           ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-01-28 15:56           ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-01-28 16:33             ` Marcelo Tosatti
     [not found]             ` <02ac9d85-7ddd-96da-1252-4663feea7c9f@marvell.com>
2021-02-01 17:50               ` [EXT] " Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-28 16:02       ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-01-28 16:59         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-28 17:35           ` Nitesh Narayan Lal [this message]
2021-01-28 20:01           ` Thomas Gleixner
     [not found]             ` <d2a4dc97-a9ed-e0e7-3b9c-c56ae46f6608@redhat.com>
     [not found]               ` <20210129142356.GB40876@fuller.cnet>
2021-01-29 17:34                 ` [EXT] " Alex Belits
     [not found]                 ` <18584612-868c-0f88-5de2-dc93c8638816@redhat.com>
2021-02-05 19:56                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-02-04 18:15             ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-02-04 18:47               ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-02-04 19:06                 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-02-04 19:17                   ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-02-05 22:23                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-02-05 22:26                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-02-05 23:02                       ` [tip: sched/urgent] Revert "lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs" tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
2021-02-07  0:43                       ` [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-02-11 15:55                         ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-03-04 18:15                           ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
     [not found]                             ` <faa8d84e-db67-7fbe-891e-f4987f106b20@marvell.com>
2021-03-04 23:23                               ` [EXT] " Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-04-06 17:22                             ` Jesse Brandeburg
2021-04-07 15:18                               ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-04-08 18:49                                 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-04-14 16:11                                 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2021-04-15 22:11                                   ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2021-04-29 21:44                                     ` Nitesh Lal
2021-04-30  1:48                                       ` Jesse Brandeburg
2021-04-30 13:10                                         ` Nitesh Lal
2021-04-30  7:10                                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-30 16:14                                         ` Nitesh Lal
2021-04-30 18:21                                           ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-30 21:07                                             ` Nitesh Lal
2021-05-01  2:21                                               ` Jesse Brandeburg
2021-05-03 13:15                                                 ` Nitesh Lal
2020-06-25 22:34 ` [Patch v4 2/3] PCI: Restrict probe functions to housekeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-07-09  8:45   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Alex Belits
2020-06-25 22:34 ` [Patch v4 3/3] net: Restrict receive packets queuing " Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-26 11:14   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-26 17:20     ` David Miller
2020-07-09  8:45   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Alex Belits

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3f138a52-7e6a-2c40-23f7-33515893a178@redhat.com \
    --to=nitesh@redhat.com \
    --cc=abelits@marvell.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jinyuqi@huawei.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.