linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"pauld@redhat.com" <pauld@redhat.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"frederic@kernel.org" <frederic@kernel.org>,
	"willy@infradead.org" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tentative prctl task isolation interface
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 16:34:30 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210114193430.GA149907@fuller.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2101140908050.38517@www.lameter.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 09:22:54AM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> > So as discussed, this is one possible prctl interface for
> > task isolation.
> >
> > Is this something that is desired? If not, what is the
> > proper way for the interface to be?
> 
> Sure that sounds liek a good beginning but I guess we need some
> specificity on the features
> 
> > +Task isolation CPU interface
> > +============================
> 
> How does one do a oneshot flush of OS activities?

        ret = prctl(PR_TASK_ISOLATION_REQUEST, ISOL_F_QUIESCE, 0, 0, 0);
        if (ret == -1) {
                perror("prctl PR_TASK_ISOLATION_REQUEST");
                exit(0);
        }

> 
> I.e. I have a polling loop over numerous shared and I/o devices in user
> space and I want to make sure that the system is quite before I enter the
> loop. 

You could configure things in two ways: with syscalls allowed or not. 

Syscalls disallowed:
===================

1) Add a new isolation feature ISOL_F_BLOCK_SYSCALLS (to block certain
syscalls) along with ISOL_F_SETUP_NOTIF (to notify upon isolation
breaking):

        if ((ifeat & ISOL_F_BLOCK_SYSCALLS) == ISOL_F_BLOCK_SYSCALLS) {
		struct task_isolation_block_syscalls tibs = { list of
							 syscalls to block,
							 additional
							 parameters }

		struct task_isolation_notif tis = { parameters to control
						signal handling upon
						isolation breaking event }
		
                ret = prctl(PR_TASK_ISOLATION_SET, ISOL_F_SETUP_NOTIF, &tis);
		if (ret != 0) { ... }
		featuremask |= ISOL_F_SETUP_NOTIF;

                ret = prctl(PR_TASK_ISOLATION_SET, ISOL_F_BLOCK_SYSCALLS, &tibs);
		if (ret != 0) { ... }
		featuremask |= ISOL_F_BLOCK_SIGNALS;

                featuremask |= ISOL_F_QUIESCE;
        }

This would require knowledge of the behaviour of individual system
calls, that is whether or not these syscalls cause the CPU to be a target
of interruptions (1) (while the QUIESCE / HARD / WARN division you propose 
allows for coarse-grained control).

Perhaps coarse control while also allowing finer grained control 
(if desired) is a useful choice?

1: for example adding free pages to per-cpu free lists.

Syscalls allowed:
=================

> In the loop itself some activities may require syscalls so they will
> potentialy cause the OS services such as timers to start again.

Or a different mode where the syscall return itself can finish
any pending activities.

> When such
> an activities is complete another quiet down call can be issued.

Although this seems more efficient (if multiple syscalls are to be
used).

> Could be implemented by setting a flag that does an action and then resets
> itself?  Or the flag could be reset if a syscall that requires timers etc
> is used?

You mean to let userspace know if a certain syscall triggered a pending
action which must be finished (before "quiet mode" is entered again) ?
Sounds like a good idea.

> Features that I think may be needed:
> 
> F_ISOL_QUIESCE		-> quiet down now but allow all OS activities. OS
> 			activites reset flag
> 
> F_ISOL_BAREMETAL_HARD	-> No OS interruptions. Fault on syscalls that
> 			require such actions in the future.

Question: why BAREMETAL ?

Two comments:

1) HARD mode could also block activities from different CPUs that can 
interrupt this isolated CPU (for example CPU hotplug, or increasing 
per-CPU trace buffer size).

Unclear whether such blockage should be performed on:

-> Individual action basis (eg: BLOCK_CPU_HOTPLUG,
BLOCK_PERCPU_TRACEBUFFER_SIZE, ...) (which could allow
individual unblocking through a sysfs interface, for example).

Or

-> Be tied to a flag with a less implementation specific meaning such as
F_ISOL_BAREMETAL_HARD.

2) For a type of application it is the case that certain interruptions
can be tolerated, as long as they do not cross certain thresholds.
For example, one loses the flexibility to read/write MSRs 
on the isolated CPUs (including performance counters,
RDT/MBM type MSRs, frequency/power statistics) by 
forcing a "no interruptions" mode.

That flexibility seems to be useful (so perhaps 
F_ISOL_BAREMETAL_HARD but optionally permitting 
certain interruptions).

> F_ISOL_BAREMETAL_WARN	-> Similar. Create a warning in the syslog when OS
> 				services require delayed processing etc
> 				but continue while resetting the flag.

Alex seems to be interested in different notification methods as well.

Thanks for the input.



  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-14 19:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-17 16:28 [PATCH] mm: introduce sysctl file to flush per-cpu vmstat statistics Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-17 18:03 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-11-17 19:06   ` Christopher Lameter
2020-11-17 19:09     ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-11-20 18:04       ` Christopher Lameter
2020-11-17 20:23     ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-20 18:02       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-20 18:20       ` Christopher Lameter
2020-11-23 18:02         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-24 17:12         ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-11-24 19:52           ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-27 15:48         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-28  3:49           ` [EXT] " Alex Belits
2020-11-30 18:18             ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-30 18:29               ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-12-03 22:47                 ` Alex Belits
2020-12-03 22:21               ` Alex Belits
2020-11-30  9:31           ` Christoph Lameter
2020-12-02 12:43             ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-12-02 15:57             ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-02 17:43               ` Christoph Lameter
2020-12-03  3:17                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07  8:08                   ` Christoph Lameter
2020-12-07 16:09                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 19:01                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-02 18:38               ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-12-04  0:20                 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-04 13:31                   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-12-04  1:43               ` [EXT] " Alex Belits
2021-01-13 12:15                 ` [RFC] tentative prctl task isolation interface Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-14  9:22                   ` Christoph Lameter
2021-01-14 19:34                     ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2021-01-15 13:24                       ` Christoph Lameter
2021-01-15 18:35                         ` Alex Belits
2021-01-21 15:51                           ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-21 16:20                             ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-22 13:05                               ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-02-01 10:48                             ` Christoph Lameter
2021-02-01 12:47                               ` Alex Belits
2021-02-01 18:20                               ` Marcelo Tosatti
2021-01-18 15:18                         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-11-24  5:02 ` [mm] e655d17ffa: BUG:using_smp_processor_id()in_preemptible kernel test robot

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=20210114193430.GA149907@fuller.cnet \
    --to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=abelits@marvell.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pauld@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC] tentative prctl task isolation interface' \
    /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).