All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: io_uring vs CPU hotplug, was Re: [PATCH 5/9] blk-mq: don't set data->ctx and data->hctx in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 10:27:46 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200521022746.GA730422@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87eereuudh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:14:18AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
> 
> > On 5/20/20 1:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
> >>> On 5/20/20 8:45 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>> It just uses kthread_create_on_cpu(), nothing home grown. Pretty sure
> >>>> they just break affinity if that CPU goes offline.
> >>>
> >>> Just checked, and it works fine for me. If I create an SQPOLL ring with
> >>> SQ_AFF set and bound to CPU 3, if CPU 3 goes offline, then the kthread
> >>> just appears unbound but runs just fine. When CPU 3 comes online again,
> >>> the mask appears correct.
> >> 
> >> When exactly during the unplug operation is it unbound?
> >
> > When the CPU has been fully offlined. I check the affinity mask, it
> > reports 0. But it's still being scheduled, and it's processing work.
> > Here's an example, PID 420 is the thread in question:
> >
> > [root@archlinux cpu3]# taskset -p 420
> > pid 420's current affinity mask: 8
> > [root@archlinux cpu3]# echo 0 > online 
> > [root@archlinux cpu3]# taskset -p 420
> > pid 420's current affinity mask: 0
> > [root@archlinux cpu3]# echo 1 > online 
> > [root@archlinux cpu3]# taskset -p 420
> > pid 420's current affinity mask: 8
> >
> > So as far as I can tell, it's working fine for me with the goals
> > I have for that kthread.
> 
> Works for me is not really useful information and does not answer my
> question:
> 
> >> When exactly during the unplug operation is it unbound?
> 
> The problem Ming and Christoph are trying to solve requires that the
> thread is migrated _before_ the hardware queue is shut down and
> drained. That's why I asked for the exact point where this happens.
> 
> When the CPU is finally offlined, i.e. the CPU cleared the online bit in
> the online mask is definitely too late simply because it still runs on
> that outgoing CPU _after_ the hardware queue is shut down and drained.

IMO, the patch in Christoph's blk-mq-hotplug.2 still works for percpu
kthread.

It is just not optimal in the retrying, but it should be fine. When the
percpu kthread is scheduled on the CPU to be offlined:

- if the kthread doesn't observe the INACTIVE flag, the allocated request
will be drained.

- otherwise, the kthread just retries and retries to allocate & release,
and sooner or later, its time slice is consumed, and migrated out, and the
cpu hotplug handler will get chance to run and move on, then the cpu is
shutdown.

- After the cpu is shutdown, the percpu kthread becomes unbound, and
the allocation from new online cpu will succeed.

Thanks,
Ming


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-21  2:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-18  6:39 blk-mq: improvement CPU hotplug (simplified version) v2 Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 1/9] blk-mq: split out a __blk_mq_get_driver_tag helper Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 2/9] blk-mq: remove the bio argument to ->prepare_request Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 3/9] blk-mq: simplify the blk_mq_get_request calling convention Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 4/9] blk-mq: merge blk_mq_rq_ctx_init into __blk_mq_alloc_request Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 5/9] blk-mq: don't set data->ctx and data->hctx in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  8:32   ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-18  9:31     ` Ming Lei
2020-05-18 10:42       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-18 11:54         ` Ming Lei
2020-05-18 13:16           ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18 14:11             ` Ming Lei
2020-05-18 16:56               ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18 18:38                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-18 18:45                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18 18:59                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-19  1:54                 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-19 15:30                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20  1:18                     ` Ming Lei
2020-05-20  3:04                       ` Ming Lei
2020-05-20  8:03                         ` io_uring vs CPU hotplug, was " Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 14:45                           ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-20 15:20                             ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-20 15:31                               ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-20 19:41                               ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-20 20:18                                 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-20 22:14                                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-20 22:40                                     ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-21  2:27                                     ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-05-21  8:13                                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-21  9:23                                         ` Ming Lei
2020-05-21 18:39                                           ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-21 18:45                                             ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-21 20:00                                               ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-22  1:57                                             ` Ming Lei
2020-05-18 18:47             ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-18 13:18           ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 6/9] blk-mq: don't set data->ctx and data->hctx in __blk_mq_alloc_request Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 7/9] blk-mq: disable preemption during allocating request tag Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 8/9] blk-mq: add blk_mq_all_tag_iter Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  6:39 ` [PATCH 9/9] blk-mq: drain I/O when all CPUs in a hctx are offline Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-18  8:42   ` John Garry
2020-05-18  9:21     ` Ming Lei
2020-05-18 11:49 ` blk-mq: improvement CPU hotplug (simplified version) v2 John Garry
2020-05-19 15:30   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-19 17:17     ` John Garry
2020-05-20 14:35     ` John Garry

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=20200521022746.GA730422@T590 \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=hare@suse.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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.