io-uring.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hao Xu <haoxu@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: consider cgroup setting when binding sqpoll cpu
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 03:28:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7ae868d-0997-8e94-53a3-a5d6513f7447@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YTeZUnshr+mgf5GS@slm.duckdns.org>

在 2021/9/8 上午12:54, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:04:07PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
>>> Would it make sense to just test whether set_cpus_allowed_ptr() succeeded
>>> afterwards?
>> Do you mean: if (sqd->sq_cpu != -1 && !set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current,
>> cpumask_of(sqd->sq_cpu)))
>>
>> I'm not familiar with set_cpus_allowed_ptr(), you mean it contains the
>> similar logic of test_cpu_in_current_cpuset?
> 
> It's kinda muddy unfortunately. I think it rejects if the target cpu is
> offline but accept and ignores if the cpu is excluded by cpuset.
> 
>> This is a bit beyond of my knowledge, so you mean if the cpu back
>> online, the task will automatically schedule to this cpu? if it's true,
>> I think the code logic here is fine.
>>
>>> offline and online. If the operation takes place while the cpu happens to be
>>> offline, the operation fails.
>> It's ok that it fails, we leave the option of retry to users themselves.
> 
> I think the first thing to do is defining the desired behavior, hopefully in
> a consistent manner, rather than letting it be defined by implementation.
> e.g. If the desired behavior is the per-cpu helper failing, then it should
> probably exit when the target cpu isn't available for whatever reason. If
> the desired behavior is best effort when cpu goes away (ie. ignore
Hmm, I see. First I think we should move the set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to
sqthread creation place not when it is running(not sure why it is
currently at the beginning of sqthred itself), then we can have
consistent behaviour.(if we do the check at sqthread's running time,
then no matter we kill it or still allow it to run when cpu_online
check fails, it's hard to let users know the result of their cpu binding
since users don't know the exact time when sqthread waken up and begin
to run, so that they can check their cpu binding result).
Second, I think users' cpu binding is a kind of 'advice', not 'command'.
So no matter cpu_online check succeeds or fails, we still let sqthread
run, meanwhile return the cpu binding result to the userspace.
Anyway, I'd like to know Jens' thoughts on this.
> affinity), the creation likely shouldn't fail when the target cpu is
> unavailable but can become available in the future.
> 
> Thanks.
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-07 19:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-01 12:43 [PATCH v4 0/2] refactor sqthread cpu binding logic Hao Xu
2021-09-01 12:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: add a helper to check if cpu in cpuset of current task Hao Xu
2021-09-01 12:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: consider cgroup setting when binding sqpoll cpu Hao Xu
2021-09-01 16:41   ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-01 16:42     ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-03 15:04     ` Hao Xu
2021-09-07 16:54       ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-07 19:28         ` Hao Xu [this message]
2021-09-02 16:48 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] refactor sqthread cpu binding logic Michal Koutný
2021-09-02 18:00   ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-09 12:34     ` Michal Koutný
2021-09-03 14:43   ` Hao Xu
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-09-01 10:18 [PATCH v3 " Hao Xu
2021-09-01 10:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: consider cgroup setting when binding sqpoll cpu Hao Xu
2021-09-01 12:31   ` Hao Xu

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=f7ae868d-0997-8e94-53a3-a5d6513f7447@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=haoxu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: consider cgroup setting when binding sqpoll cpu' \
    /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 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).