linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	guro@fb.com, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:20:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <66652406-25e4-a9e7-45a1-8ad14d2e8a36@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAjyVmS5VYvU6DBxg4-JEo5bdmWbngf-03YsY18cmWv_g@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/23/21 1:32 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> PowerPC PowerNV Host: (160 cpus)
>> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 160 num_possible_cpus 160 nr_cpu_ids 160
>>
>> PowerPC pseries KVM guest: (-smp 16,maxcpus=160)
>> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 16 num_possible_cpus 160 nr_cpu_ids 160
>>
>> That's what I see on powerpc, hence I thought num_present_cpus() could
>> be the correct one to use in slub page order calculation.
> 
> num_present_cpus() is set to 1 on arm64 until secondaries cpus boot
> 
> arm64 224cpus acpi host:
> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 1 num_possible_cpus 224 nr_cpu_ids 224
> arm64 8cpus DT host:
> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 1 num_possible_cpus 8 nr_cpu_ids 8
> arm64 8cpus qemu-system-aarch64 (-smp 8,maxcpus=256)
> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 1 num_possible_cpus 8 nr_cpu_ids 8

I would have expected num_present_cpus to be 224, 8, 8, respectively.

> Then present and online increase to num_possible_cpus once all cpus are booted
> 
>>
>> >
>> > What about heuristic:
>> > - num_online_cpus() > 1 - we trust that and use it
>> > - otherwise nr_cpu_ids
>> > Would that work? Too arbitrary?
>>
>> Looking at the following snippet from include/linux/cpumask.h, it
>> appears that num_present_cpus() should be reasonable compromise
>> between online and possible/nr_cpus_ids to use here.
>>
>> /*
>>  * The following particular system cpumasks and operations manage
>>  * possible, present, active and online cpus.
>>  *
>>  *     cpu_possible_mask- has bit 'cpu' set iff cpu is populatable
>>  *     cpu_present_mask - has bit 'cpu' set iff cpu is populated
>>  *     cpu_online_mask  - has bit 'cpu' set iff cpu available to scheduler
>>  *     cpu_active_mask  - has bit 'cpu' set iff cpu available to migration
>>  *
>>  *  If !CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU, present == possible, and active == online.
>>  *
>>  *  The cpu_possible_mask is fixed at boot time, as the set of CPU id's
>>  *  that it is possible might ever be plugged in at anytime during the
>>  *  life of that system boot.  The cpu_present_mask is dynamic(*),
>>  *  representing which CPUs are currently plugged in.  And
>>  *  cpu_online_mask is the dynamic subset of cpu_present_mask,
>>  *  indicating those CPUs available for scheduling.
>>  *
>>  *  If HOTPLUG is enabled, then cpu_possible_mask is forced to have
>>  *  all NR_CPUS bits set, otherwise it is just the set of CPUs that
>>  *  ACPI reports present at boot.
>>  *
>>  *  If HOTPLUG is enabled, then cpu_present_mask varies dynamically,
>>  *  depending on what ACPI reports as currently plugged in, otherwise
>>  *  cpu_present_mask is just a copy of cpu_possible_mask.
>>  *
>>  *  (*) Well, cpu_present_mask is dynamic in the hotplug case.  If not
>>  *      hotplug, it's a copy of cpu_possible_mask, hence fixed at boot.
>>  */
>>
>> So for host systems, present is (usually) equal to possible and for
> 
> But "cpu_present_mask varies dynamically,  depending on what ACPI
> reports as currently plugged in"
> 
> So it should varies when secondaries cpus are booted

Hm, but booting the secondaries is just a software (kernel) action? They are
already physically there, so it seems to me as if the cpu_present_mask is not
populated correctly on arm64, and it's just a mirror of cpu_online_mask?


  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-25 11:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-18  8:27 [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order Bharata B Rao
2020-11-18 11:25 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-11-18 19:34   ` Roman Gushchin
2020-11-18 19:53     ` David Rientjes
2021-01-20 17:36 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-21  5:30   ` Bharata B Rao
2021-01-21  9:09     ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-21 10:01     ` Christoph Lameter
2021-01-21 10:48       ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-21 18:19       ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-22  8:03         ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-22 12:03           ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-22 13:16             ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-23  5:16             ` Bharata B Rao
2021-01-23 12:32               ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-25 11:20                 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2021-01-26 23:03                   ` Will Deacon
2021-01-27  9:10                     ` Christoph Lameter
2021-01-27 11:04                       ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-03 11:10                         ` Bharata B Rao
2021-02-04  7:32                           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-04  9:07                             ` Christoph Lameter
2021-02-04  9:33                           ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-08 13:41                             ` [PATCH] mm, slub: better heuristic for number of cpus when calculating slab order Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-08 14:54                               ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-10 14:07                               ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-22 13:05         ` [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order Jann Horn
2021-01-22 13:09           ` Jann Horn
2021-01-22 15:27           ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-25  4:28           ` Bharata B Rao
2021-01-26  8:52         ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-26 13:38           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-26 13:59             ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-28 13:45               ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-28 13:57                 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-28 14:42                   ` Mel Gorman

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=66652406-25e4-a9e7-45a1-8ad14d2e8a36@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=bharata@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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 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).