Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:04:25 +0800 | From | Ming Lei <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] genirq/affinity: report extra vectors on uneven nodes |
| |
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:32:24AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > 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.
Another policy is to assign vectors among nodes according to the following ratio:
ncpus in this node / total ncpus in un-assigned nodes
I have tried the following patch, looks it works fine:
diff --git a/kernel/irq/affinity.c b/kernel/irq/affinity.c index 6fef48033f96..a598f20701a3 100644 --- a/kernel/irq/affinity.c +++ b/kernel/irq/affinity.c @@ -94,6 +94,28 @@ static int get_nodes_in_cpumask(cpumask_var_t *node_to_cpumask, return nodes; } +static int nodes_cpus(unsigned start_node, const nodemask_t nodemsk, + const cpumask_var_t *node_to_cpumask, + const struct cpumask *cpu_mask, struct cpumask *nmsk) +{ + unsigned n, ncpus, total_cpus = 0; + + for_each_node_mask(n, nodemsk) { + if (n < start_node) + continue; + + /* Get the cpus on this node which are in the mask */ + cpumask_and(nmsk, cpu_mask, node_to_cpumask[n]); + + /* Calculate the number of cpus per vector */ + ncpus = cpumask_weight(nmsk); + + total_cpus += ncpus; + } + + return total_cpus; +} + static int __irq_build_affinity_masks(unsigned int startvec, unsigned int numvecs, unsigned int firstvec, @@ -128,15 +150,25 @@ 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; - - /* Spread the vectors per node */ - vecs_per_node = (numvecs - (curvec - firstvec)) / nodes; + unsigned int ncpus_left = nodes_cpus(n, nodemsk, + node_to_cpumask, cpu_mask, nmsk); /* Get the cpus on this node which are in the mask */ cpumask_and(nmsk, cpu_mask, node_to_cpumask[n]); /* Calculate the number of cpus per vector */ ncpus = cpumask_weight(nmsk); + + /* + * Spread the vectors per node, and node with more CPUs will be + * assigned to more vectors + */ + vecs_per_node = (numvecs - (curvec - firstvec)) * ncpus / ncpus_left; + + /* at least assign one vector for this node */ + if (!vecs_per_node) + vecs_per_node = 1; + vecs_to_assign = min(vecs_per_node, ncpus); /* Account for rounding errors */ @@ -160,7 +192,6 @@ static int __irq_build_affinity_masks(unsigned int startvec, break; if (curvec >= last_affv) curvec = firstvec; - --nodes; } return done; }
thanks, Ming
| |