lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
From
Date
On 2021-01-27 12:19, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:57:16AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2020-06-25 23:34, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> From: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>
>>>
>>> The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
>>> isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
>>> it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
>>> these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
>>> overhead.
>>>
>>> Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
>>> available housekeeping CPUs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> lib/cpumask.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/cpumask.c b/lib/cpumask.c
>>> index fb22fb266f93..85da6ab4fbb5 100644
>>> --- a/lib/cpumask.c
>>> +++ b/lib/cpumask.c
>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/export.h>
>>> #include <linux/memblock.h>
>>> #include <linux/numa.h>
>>> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
>>> /**
>>> * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask
>>> @@ -205,22 +206,27 @@ void __init free_bootmem_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t mask)
>>> */
>>> unsigned int cpumask_local_spread(unsigned int i, int node)
>>> {
>>> - int cpu;
>>> + int cpu, hk_flags;
>>> + const struct cpumask *mask;
>>> + hk_flags = HK_FLAG_DOMAIN | HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ;
>>> + mask = housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);
>>
>> AFAICS, this generally resolves to something based on cpu_possible_mask
>> rather than cpu_online_mask as before, so could now potentially return an
>> offline CPU. Was that an intentional change?
>
> Robin,
>
> AFAICS online CPUs should be filtered.

Apologies if I'm being thick, but can you explain how? In the case of
isolation being disabled or compiled out, housekeeping_cpumask() is
literally just "return cpu_possible_mask;". If we then iterate over that
with for_each_cpu() and just return the i'th possible CPU (e.g. in the
NUMA_NO_NODE case), what guarantees that CPU is actually online?

Robin.

>> I was just looking at the current code since I had the rare presence of mind
>> to check if something suitable already existed before I start open-coding
>> "any online CPU, but local node preferred" logic for handling IRQ affinity
>> in a driver - cpumask_local_spread() appears to be almost what I want (if a
>> bit more heavyweight), if only it would actually guarantee an online CPU as
>> the kerneldoc claims :(
>>
>> Robin.
>>
>>> /* Wrap: we always want a cpu. */
>>> - i %= num_online_cpus();
>>> + i %= cpumask_weight(mask);
>>> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
>>> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask)
>>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
>>> if (i-- == 0)
>>> return cpu;
>>> + }
>>> } else {
>>> /* NUMA first. */
>>> - for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask)
>>> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), mask) {
>>> if (i-- == 0)
>>> return cpu;
>>> + }
>>> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask) {
>>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
>>> /* Skip NUMA nodes, done above. */
>>> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node)))
>>> continue;
>>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-27 13:40    [W:0.214 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site