From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.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: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:49:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87b81c08-878f-8394-be94-f5b99ee0be5b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210127130925.GA64740@fuller.cnet>
On 2021-01-27 13:09, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:36:30PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-01-27 12:19, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:57:16AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-06-25 23:34, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>>>> From: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
>>>>> isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
>>>>> it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
>>>>> these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
>>>>> overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
>>>>> available housekeeping CPUs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> lib/cpumask.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/cpumask.c b/lib/cpumask.c
>>>>> index fb22fb266f93..85da6ab4fbb5 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/cpumask.c
>>>>> +++ b/lib/cpumask.c
>>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/export.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/memblock.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/numa.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask
>>>>> @@ -205,22 +206,27 @@ void __init free_bootmem_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t mask)
>>>>> */
>>>>> unsigned int cpumask_local_spread(unsigned int i, int node)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - int cpu;
>>>>> + int cpu, hk_flags;
>>>>> + const struct cpumask *mask;
>>>>> + 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.
>>
>> Apologies if I'm being thick, but can you explain how? In the case of
>> isolation being disabled or compiled out, housekeeping_cpumask() is
>> literally just "return cpu_possible_mask;". If we then iterate over that
>> with for_each_cpu() and just return the i'th possible CPU (e.g. in the
>> NUMA_NO_NODE case), what guarantees that CPU is actually online?
>>
>> Robin.
>
> Nothing, but that was the situation before 1abdfe706a579a702799fce465bceb9fb01d407c
> as well.
True, if someone calls from a racy context then there's not much we can
do to ensure that any CPU *remains* online after we initially observed
it to be, but when it's called from somewhere safe like a cpuhp offline
handler, then picking from cpu_online_mask *did* always do the right
thing (by my interpretation), whereas picking from
housekeeping_cpumask() might not.
This is why I decided to ask rather than just send a patch to fix what I
think might be a bug - I have no objection if this *is* intended
behaviour, other than suggesting we amend the "...selects an online
CPU..." comment if that aspect was never meant to be relied upon.
Thanks,
Robin.
>
> cpumask_local_spread() should probably be disabling CPU hotplug.
>
> Thomas?
>
>>
>>>> I was just looking at the current code since I had the rare presence of mind
>>>> to check if something suitable already existed before I start open-coding
>>>> "any online CPU, but local node preferred" logic for handling IRQ affinity
>>>> in a driver - cpumask_local_spread() appears to be almost what I want (if a
>>>> bit more heavyweight), if only it would actually guarantee an online CPU as
>>>> the kerneldoc claims :(
>>>>
>>>> Robin.
>>>>
>>>>> /* Wrap: we always want a cpu. */
>>>>> - i %= num_online_cpus();
>>>>> + i %= cpumask_weight(mask);
>>>>> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
>>>>> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask)
>>>>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
>>>>> if (i-- == 0)
>>>>> return cpu;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> /* NUMA first. */
>>>>> - for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask)
>>>>> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), mask) {
>>>>> if (i-- == 0)
>>>>> return cpu;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask) {
>>>>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
>>>>> /* Skip NUMA nodes, done above. */
>>>>> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node)))
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-27 13:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ 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
2021-01-27 11:57 ` 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 [this message]
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
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
2021-02-07 0:43 ` 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
2020-06-25 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
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=87b81c08-878f-8394-be94-f5b99ee0be5b@arm.com \
--to=robin.murphy@arm.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=nitesh@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).