From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
frederic@kernel.org, sassmann@redhat.com,
jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, lihong.yang@intel.com,
helgaas@kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
jacob.e.keller@intel.com, jlelli@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org,
bhelgaas@google.com, mike.marciniszyn@intel.com,
dennis.dalessandro@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
jiri@nvidia.com, mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, lgoncalv@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: Limit pci_alloc_irq_vectors() to housekeeping CPUs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:00:05 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201019140005.GB17287@fuller.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201019111137.GL2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 01:11:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 02:14:46PM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > >> + hk_cpus = housekeeping_num_online_cpus(HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ);
> > >> +
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * If we have isolated CPUs for use by real-time tasks, to keep the
> > >> + * latency overhead to a minimum, device-specific IRQ vectors are moved
> > >> + * to the housekeeping CPUs from the userspace by changing their
> > >> + * affinity mask. Limit the vector usage to keep housekeeping CPUs from
> > >> + * running out of IRQ vectors.
> > >> + */
> > >> + if (hk_cpus < num_online_cpus()) {
> > >> + if (hk_cpus < min_vecs)
> > >> + max_vecs = min_vecs;
> > >> + else if (hk_cpus < max_vecs)
> > >> + max_vecs = hk_cpus;
> > > is that:
> > >
> > > max_vecs = clamp(hk_cpus, min_vecs, max_vecs);
> >
> > Yes, I think this will do.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, do we really need to have that conditional on hk_cpus <
> > > num_online_cpus()? That is, why can't we do this unconditionally?
> >
> > FWIU most of the drivers using this API already restricts the number of
> > vectors based on the num_online_cpus, if we do it unconditionally we can
> > unnecessary duplicate the restriction for cases where we don't have any
> > isolated CPUs.
>
> unnecessary isn't really a concern here, this is a slow path. What's
> important is code clarity.
>
> > Also, different driver seems to take different factors into consideration
> > along with num_online_cpus while finding the max_vecs to request, for
> > example in the case of mlx5:
> > MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev, num_ports) * num_online_cpus() +
> > MLX5_EQ_VEC_COMP_BASE
> >
> > Having hk_cpus < num_online_cpus() helps us ensure that we are only
> > changing the behavior when we have isolated CPUs.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> That seems to want to allocate N interrupts per cpu (plus some random
> static amount, which seems weird, but whatever). This patch breaks that.
On purpose. For the isolated CPUs we don't want network device
interrupts (in this context).
> So I think it is important to figure out what that driver really wants
> in the nohz_full case. If it wants to retain N interrupts per CPU, and
> only reduce the number of CPUs, the proposed interface is wrong.
It wants N interrupts per non-isolated (AKA housekeeping) CPU.
Zero interrupts for isolated interrupts.
> > > And what are the (desired) semantics vs hotplug? Using a cpumask without
> > > excluding hotplug is racy.
> >
> > The housekeeping_mask should still remain constant, isn't?
> > In any case, I can double check this.
>
> The goal is very much to have that dynamically configurable.
Yes, but this patch is a fix for customer bug in the old, static on-boot
isolation CPU configuration.
---
Discussing the dynamic configuration (not this patch!) case:
Would need to enable/disable interrupts for a particular device
on a per-CPU basis. Such interface does not exist yet.
Perhaps that is what you are looking for when writing "proposed interface
is wrong" Peter?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-19 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-28 18:35 [PATCH v4 0/4] isolation: limit msix vectors to housekeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-09-28 18:35 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] sched/isolation: API to get number of " Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-09-28 18:35 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] sched/isolation: Extend nohz_full to isolate managed IRQs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-23 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-23 13:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-23 13:57 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-23 13:45 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-09-28 18:35 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] i40e: Limit msix vectors to housekeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-09-28 18:35 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: Limit pci_alloc_irq_vectors() " Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-09-28 21:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-09-29 17:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-16 12:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-18 18:14 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-19 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-19 14:00 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2020-10-19 14:25 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-20 7:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-20 13:00 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-20 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-20 14:39 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-22 17:47 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-23 8:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-23 13:10 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-23 21:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-26 13:35 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-26 13:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-26 17:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-10-26 19:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-26 19:11 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-10-26 19:21 ` Jacob Keller
2020-10-26 20:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-26 21:11 ` Jacob Keller
2020-10-26 21:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-26 22:13 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-26 22:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-26 22:52 ` Jacob Keller
2020-10-26 22:22 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-26 22:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-26 23:08 ` Jacob Keller
2020-10-27 14:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-27 11:47 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-10-27 14:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-19 14:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-20 14:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-20 16:18 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-20 18:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-21 20:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-21 21:04 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-10-22 0:02 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-22 0:27 ` Jacob Keller
2020-10-22 8:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-22 12:28 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2020-10-22 22:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-01 15:49 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] isolation: limit msix vectors " Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-08 21:40 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
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=20201019140005.GB17287@fuller.cnet \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dennis.dalessandro@intel.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=jiri@nvidia.com \
--cc=jlelli@redhat.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=lihong.yang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mike.marciniszyn@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nitesh@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sassmann@redhat.com \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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).