Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] sched/topology: introduce sched_numa_find_next_cpu()

From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
	Pawel Chmielewski <pawel.chmielewski@intel.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] sched/topology: introduce sched_numa_find_next_cpu()
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:17:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xhsmhwn1zj947.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZEi1/zO9cGccogea@yury-ThinkPad>

On 25/04/23 22:26, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:54:56AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 19/04/23 22:19, Yury Norov wrote:
>> > +/*
>> > + * sched_numa_find_next_cpu() - given the NUMA topology, find the next cpu
>> > + * cpumask: cpumask to find a cpu from
>> > + * cpu: current cpu
>> > + * node: local node
>> > + * hop: (in/out) indicates distance order of current CPU to a local node
>> > + *
>> > + * The function searches for next cpu at a given NUMA distance, indicated
>> > + * by hop, and if nothing found, tries to find CPUs at a greater distance,
>> > + * starting from the beginning.
>> > + *
>> > + * Return: cpu, or >= nr_cpu_ids when nothing found.
>> > + */
>> > +int sched_numa_find_next_cpu(const struct cpumask *cpus, int cpu, int node, unsigned int *hop)
>> > +{
>> > +	unsigned long *cur, *prev;
>> > +	struct cpumask ***masks;
>> > +	unsigned int ret;
>> > +
>> > +	if (*hop >= sched_domains_numa_levels)
>> > +		return nr_cpu_ids;
>> > +
>> > +	masks = rcu_dereference(sched_domains_numa_masks);
>> > +	cur = cpumask_bits(masks[*hop][node]);
>> > +	if (*hop == 0)
>> > +		ret = find_next_and_bit(cpumask_bits(cpus), cur, nr_cpu_ids, cpu);
>> > +	else {
>> > +		prev = cpumask_bits(masks[*hop - 1][node]);
>> > +		ret = find_next_and_andnot_bit(cpumask_bits(cpus), cur, prev, nr_cpu_ids, cpu);
>> > +	}
>> > +
>> > +	if (ret < nr_cpu_ids)
>> > +		return ret;
>> > +
>> > +	*hop += 1;
>> > +	return sched_numa_find_next_cpu(cpus, 0, node, hop);
>> 
>> sched_domains_numa_levels is a fairly small number, so the recursion depth
>> isn't something we really need to worry about - still, the iterative
>> variant of this is fairly straightforward to get to:
>
> This is a tail recursion. Compiler normally converts it into the loop just
> as well. At least, my GCC does.

I'd hope so in 2023! I still prefer the iterative approach as I find it
more readable, but I'm not /too/ strongly attached to it.