All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	zwisler@kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:16:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d16cabf9-28f7-31e2-c43d-027738185518@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iJOYiM+rHsM4GPifKNJ=X+AtV2MgWTn+f7u0VBzXb2og@mail.gmail.com>



On 9/26/2018 5:31 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch introduces four new variants of the async_schedule_ functions
>> that allow scheduling on a specific NUMA node.
>>
>> The first two functions are async_schedule_near and
>> async_schedule_near_domain which end up mapping to async_schedule and
>> async_schedule_domain but provide NUMA node specific functionality. They
>> replace the original functions which were moved to inline function
>> definitions that call the new functions while passing NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> The second two functions are async_schedule_dev and
>> async_schedule_dev_domain which provide NUMA specific functionality when
>> passing a device as the data member and that device has a NUMA node other
>> than NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> The main motivation behind this is to address the need to be able to
>> schedule device specific init work on specific NUMA nodes in order to
>> improve performance of memory initialization.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> [..]
>>   /**
>> - * async_schedule - schedule a function for asynchronous execution
>> + * async_schedule_near - schedule a function for asynchronous execution
>>    * @func: function to execute asynchronously
>>    * @data: data pointer to pass to the function
>> + * @node: NUMA node that we want to schedule this on or close to
>>    *
>>    * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>>    * Note: This function may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>>    */
>> -async_cookie_t async_schedule(async_func_t func, void *data)
>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_near(async_func_t func, void *data, int node)
>>   {
>> -       return __async_schedule(func, data, &async_dfl_domain);
>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, data, node, &async_dfl_domain);
>>   }
>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule);
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_near);
> 
> Looks good to me. The _near() suffix makes it clear that we're doing a
> best effort hint to the work placement compared to the strict
> expectations of _on routines.
> 
>>
>>   /**
>> - * async_schedule_domain - schedule a function for asynchronous execution within a certain domain
>> + * async_schedule_dev_domain - schedule a function for asynchronous execution within a certain domain
>>    * @func: function to execute asynchronously
>> - * @data: data pointer to pass to the function
>> + * @dev: device that we are scheduling this work for
>>    * @domain: the domain
>>    *
>> - * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>> - * @domain may be used in the async_synchronize_*_domain() functions to
>> - * wait within a certain synchronization domain rather than globally.  A
>> - * synchronization domain is specified via @domain.  Note: This function
>> - * may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>> + * Device specific version of async_schedule_near_domain that provides some
>> + * NUMA awareness based on the device node.
>> + */
>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_dev_domain(async_func_t func, struct device *dev,
>> +                                        struct async_domain *domain)
>> +{
>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, dev, dev_to_node(dev), domain);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_dev_domain);
> 
> This seems unnecessary and restrictive. Callers may want to pass
> something other than dev as the parameter to the async function, and
> dev_to_node() is not on onerous burden to place on callers.


That is what async_schedule_near_domain is for, they can call that. The 
"dev" versions of the calls as just supposed to be helpers since one of 
the most common parameters to the async_schedule calls is a device, so I 
thought I would just put together a function that takes care of all this 
for us so I could drop an argument and avoid having to use dev_to_node 
everywhere.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	zwisler@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:16:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d16cabf9-28f7-31e2-c43d-027738185518@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iJOYiM+rHsM4GPifKNJ=X+AtV2MgWTn+f7u0VBzXb2og@mail.gmail.com>



On 9/26/2018 5:31 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch introduces four new variants of the async_schedule_ functions
>> that allow scheduling on a specific NUMA node.
>>
>> The first two functions are async_schedule_near and
>> async_schedule_near_domain which end up mapping to async_schedule and
>> async_schedule_domain but provide NUMA node specific functionality. They
>> replace the original functions which were moved to inline function
>> definitions that call the new functions while passing NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> The second two functions are async_schedule_dev and
>> async_schedule_dev_domain which provide NUMA specific functionality when
>> passing a device as the data member and that device has a NUMA node other
>> than NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> The main motivation behind this is to address the need to be able to
>> schedule device specific init work on specific NUMA nodes in order to
>> improve performance of memory initialization.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> [..]
>>   /**
>> - * async_schedule - schedule a function for asynchronous execution
>> + * async_schedule_near - schedule a function for asynchronous execution
>>    * @func: function to execute asynchronously
>>    * @data: data pointer to pass to the function
>> + * @node: NUMA node that we want to schedule this on or close to
>>    *
>>    * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>>    * Note: This function may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>>    */
>> -async_cookie_t async_schedule(async_func_t func, void *data)
>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_near(async_func_t func, void *data, int node)
>>   {
>> -       return __async_schedule(func, data, &async_dfl_domain);
>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, data, node, &async_dfl_domain);
>>   }
>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule);
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_near);
> 
> Looks good to me. The _near() suffix makes it clear that we're doing a
> best effort hint to the work placement compared to the strict
> expectations of _on routines.
> 
>>
>>   /**
>> - * async_schedule_domain - schedule a function for asynchronous execution within a certain domain
>> + * async_schedule_dev_domain - schedule a function for asynchronous execution within a certain domain
>>    * @func: function to execute asynchronously
>> - * @data: data pointer to pass to the function
>> + * @dev: device that we are scheduling this work for
>>    * @domain: the domain
>>    *
>> - * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>> - * @domain may be used in the async_synchronize_*_domain() functions to
>> - * wait within a certain synchronization domain rather than globally.  A
>> - * synchronization domain is specified via @domain.  Note: This function
>> - * may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>> + * Device specific version of async_schedule_near_domain that provides some
>> + * NUMA awareness based on the device node.
>> + */
>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_dev_domain(async_func_t func, struct device *dev,
>> +                                        struct async_domain *domain)
>> +{
>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, dev, dev_to_node(dev), domain);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_dev_domain);
> 
> This seems unnecessary and restrictive. Callers may want to pass
> something other than dev as the parameter to the async function, and
> dev_to_node() is not on onerous burden to place on callers.


That is what async_schedule_near_domain is for, they can call that. The 
"dev" versions of the calls as just supposed to be helpers since one of 
the most common parameters to the async_schedule calls is a device, so I 
thought I would just put together a function that takes care of all this 
for us so I could drop an argument and avoid having to use dev_to_node 
everywhere.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list
	<linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Greg KH
	<gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-nvdimm
	<linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
	jiangshanlai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	zwisler-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki"
	<rafael-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:16:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d16cabf9-28f7-31e2-c43d-027738185518@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iJOYiM+rHsM4GPifKNJ=X+AtV2MgWTn+f7u0VBzXb2og-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>



On 9/26/2018 5:31 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> This patch introduces four new variants of the async_schedule_ functions
>> that allow scheduling on a specific NUMA node.
>>
>> The first two functions are async_schedule_near and
>> async_schedule_near_domain which end up mapping to async_schedule and
>> async_schedule_domain but provide NUMA node specific functionality. They
>> replace the original functions which were moved to inline function
>> definitions that call the new functions while passing NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> The second two functions are async_schedule_dev and
>> async_schedule_dev_domain which provide NUMA specific functionality when
>> passing a device as the data member and that device has a NUMA node other
>> than NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> The main motivation behind this is to address the need to be able to
>> schedule device specific init work on specific NUMA nodes in order to
>> improve performance of memory initialization.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> [..]
>>   /**
>> - * async_schedule - schedule a function for asynchronous execution
>> + * async_schedule_near - schedule a function for asynchronous execution
>>    * @func: function to execute asynchronously
>>    * @data: data pointer to pass to the function
>> + * @node: NUMA node that we want to schedule this on or close to
>>    *
>>    * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>>    * Note: This function may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>>    */
>> -async_cookie_t async_schedule(async_func_t func, void *data)
>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_near(async_func_t func, void *data, int node)
>>   {
>> -       return __async_schedule(func, data, &async_dfl_domain);
>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, data, node, &async_dfl_domain);
>>   }
>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule);
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_near);
> 
> Looks good to me. The _near() suffix makes it clear that we're doing a
> best effort hint to the work placement compared to the strict
> expectations of _on routines.
> 
>>
>>   /**
>> - * async_schedule_domain - schedule a function for asynchronous execution within a certain domain
>> + * async_schedule_dev_domain - schedule a function for asynchronous execution within a certain domain
>>    * @func: function to execute asynchronously
>> - * @data: data pointer to pass to the function
>> + * @dev: device that we are scheduling this work for
>>    * @domain: the domain
>>    *
>> - * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>> - * @domain may be used in the async_synchronize_*_domain() functions to
>> - * wait within a certain synchronization domain rather than globally.  A
>> - * synchronization domain is specified via @domain.  Note: This function
>> - * may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>> + * Device specific version of async_schedule_near_domain that provides some
>> + * NUMA awareness based on the device node.
>> + */
>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_dev_domain(async_func_t func, struct device *dev,
>> +                                        struct async_domain *domain)
>> +{
>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, dev, dev_to_node(dev), domain);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_dev_domain);
> 
> This seems unnecessary and restrictive. Callers may want to pass
> something other than dev as the parameter to the async function, and
> dev_to_node() is not on onerous burden to place on callers.


That is what async_schedule_near_domain is for, they can call that. The 
"dev" versions of the calls as just supposed to be helpers since one of 
the most common parameters to the async_schedule calls is a device, so I 
thought I would just put together a function that takes care of all this 
for us so I could drop an argument and avoid having to use dev_to_node 
everywhere.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-27 15:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-26 21:51 [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 0/5] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:53   ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 21:53     ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 21:53     ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:05     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:05       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:09       ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:09         ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:09         ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:19         ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:19           ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 16:01           ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 16:01             ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 16:01             ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 21:54             ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 21:54               ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 21:54               ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 17:41               ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 17:41                 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 17:41                 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:23                 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:23                   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:23                   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:41                   ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:41                     ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:41                     ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 20:49                     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 20:49                       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 20:49                       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific " Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27  0:31   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:31     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:31     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:16     ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2018-09-27 15:16       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:16       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 19:48       ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 19:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 20:03         ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 20:03           ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27  0:48   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:48     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:48     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:27     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:27       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:27       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28  2:48       ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28  2:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28  2:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 4/5] driver core: Use new async_schedule_dev command Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:42   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:42     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:42     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:52 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 5/5] nvdimm: Schedule device registration on node local to the device Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:52   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:52   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:46   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:46     ` Dan Williams

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=d16cabf9-28f7-31e2-c43d-027738185518@linux.intel.com \
    --to=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=zwisler@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node' \
    /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

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.