lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] irq: consider cpus on nodes are unbalanced
Date
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:33, Ming Lei wrote:
>> >> If cpus on a node are offline at boot time, there are
>> >> difference in the number of nodes between when building affinity
>> >> masks for present cpus and when building affinity masks for possible
>> >> cpus.
>
> There is always difference between the two number of nodes, the 1st is
> node number covering present cpus, and the 2nd one is the node number
> covering other possible cpus not spread.

In this case, building affinity masks for possible cpus would change even
the affinity mask bits for present cpus in the "if (numvecs <= nodes)" route.
This is the second problem I mentioned.
I will explain about the actual case later.

>
>>> This patch fixes 2 problems caused by the difference of the
>
> Is there any user visible problem?

The panic occured in lpfc driver.

>
>> >> number of nodes:
>> >>
>> >> - If some unused vectors remain after building masks for present cpus,
>
> We just select a new vector for starting the spread if un-allocated
> vectors remains, but the number for allocation is still numvecs. We hope both
> present cpus and non-present cpus can be balanced on each vector, so that each
> vector may get present cpu allocated.

I understood.
I withdraw the first problem I mentioned.

>
>> >> remained vectors are assigned for building masks for possible cpus.
>> >> Therefore "numvecs <= nodes" condition must be
>> >> "vecs_to_assign <= nodes_to_assign". Fix this problem by making this
>> >> condition appropriate.
>> >>
>> >> - The routine of "numvecs <= nodes" condition can overwrite bits of
>> >> masks for present cpus in building masks for possible cpus. Fix this
>> >> problem by making CPU bits, which is not target, not changing.
>
> 'numvecs' is always the total number of vectors for assigning CPUs, if
> the number is <= nodes, we just assign interested cpus in the whole
> node into each vector until all interested cpus are allocated out.
>
>
>> Do you have any comments?
>
> Not see issues in current way, or can you explain a bit the real
> user visible problem in details?

I experienced a panic occurred in lpfc driver with broken affinity masks.

The system had the following configuration:
-----
node num: cpu num
Node #0: #0 #1 (#4 #8 #12)
Node #1: #2 #3 (#5 #9 #13)
Node #2: (#6 #10 #14)
Node #3: (#7 #11 #15)

Number of CPUs: 16
Present CPU: cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3
Number of nodes covering present cpus: 2
Number of nodes covering possible cpus: 4
Number of vectors: 4
-----

Due to the configuration above, cpumask_var_t *node_to_cpumask was as follows:
-----
node_to_cpumask[0] = 0x1113
node_to_cpumask[1] = 0x222c
node_to_cpumask[2] = 0x4440
node_to_cpumask[3] = 0x8880
-----

As the result of assigning vertors for present cpus, masks[].mask were as follows:
-----
masks[vec1].mask = 0x0004
masks[vec2].mask = 0x0008
masks[vec3].mask = 0x0001
masks[vec4].mask = 0x0002
-----

As the result of assigning vertors for possible cpus, masks[].mask were as follows:
-----
masks[vec1].mask = 0x1117
masks[vec2].mask = 0x222c
masks[vec3].mask = 0x4441
masks[vec4].mask = 0x8882
-----

The problem I encountered was that multiple vectors were assigned for
a single present cpu unexpectedly.
For example, vec1 and vec3 were assigned to cpu0.
Due to this mask, the panic occured in lpfc driver.

>> >> - The routine of "numvecs <= nodes" condition can overwrite bits of
>> >> masks for present cpus in building masks for possible cpus. Fix this
>> >> problem by making CPU bits, which is not target, not changing.

Therefore, if it uses node_to_cpumask, AND is necessary in order not to change
CPU bits of non target.

Thanks,
Rei

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-17 04:12    [W:0.080 / U:0.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site