Re: [PATCH] genirq/affinity: report extra vectors on uneven nodes

[Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:04:28AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Jon Derrick wrote:
> > The current irq spreading algorithm spreads vectors amongst cpus evenly
> > per node. If a node has more cpus than another node, the extra vectors
> > being spread may not be reported back to the caller.
> > 
> > This is most apparent with the NVMe driver and nr_cpus < vectors, where
> > the underreporting results in the caller's WARN being triggered:
> > 
> > irq_build_affinity_masks()
> > ...
> > 	if (nr_present < numvecs)
> > 		WARN_ON(nr_present + nr_others < numvecs);
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/irq/affinity.c | 7 +++++--
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/affinity.c b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> > index 4352b08ae48d..9beafb8c7e92 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> > @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ static int __irq_build_affinity_masks(unsigned int startvec,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	for_each_node_mask(n, nodemsk) {
> > -		unsigned int ncpus, v, vecs_to_assign, vecs_per_node;
> > +		unsigned int ncpus, v, vecs_to_assign, total_vecs_to_assign,
> > +			vecs_per_node;
> >  
> >  		/* Spread the vectors per node */
> >  		vecs_per_node = (numvecs - (curvec - firstvec)) / nodes;
> > @@ -141,14 +142,16 @@ static int __irq_build_affinity_masks(unsigned int startvec,
> >  
> >  		/* Account for rounding errors */
> >  		extra_vecs = ncpus - vecs_to_assign * (ncpus / vecs_to_assign);
> > +		total_vecs_to_assign = vecs_to_assign + extra_vecs;
> >  
> > -		for (v = 0; curvec < last_affv && v < vecs_to_assign;
> > +		for (v = 0; curvec < last_affv && v < total_vecs_to_assign;
> >  		     curvec++, v++) {
> >  			cpus_per_vec = ncpus / vecs_to_assign;
> >  
> >  			/* Account for extra vectors to compensate rounding errors */
> >  			if (extra_vecs) {
> >  				cpus_per_vec++;
> > +				v++;
> >  				--extra_vecs;
> >  			}
> >  			irq_spread_init_one(&masks[curvec].mask, nmsk,
> > -- 

This looks like it will break the spread to non-present CPUs since
it's not accurately reporting how many vectors were assigned for the
present spread.

I think the real problem is the spread's vecs_per_node doesn't account
which nodes contribute more CPUs than others. For example:

  Node 0 has 32 CPUs
  Node 1 has 8 CPUs
  Assign 32 vectors

The current algorithm assigns 16 vectors to node 0 because vecs_per_node
is calculated as 32 vectors / 2 nodes on the first iteration. The
subsequent iteration for node 1 gets 8 vectors because it has only 8
CPUs, leaving 8 vectors unassigned.

A more fair spread would give node 0 the remaining 8 vectors. This
optimization, however, is a bit more complex than the current algorithm,
which is probably why it wasn't done, so I think the warning should just
be removed.