lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Requirements to control kernel isolation/nohz_full at runtime
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:36:36PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 03:30:15PM -0300 Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 03:23:59PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:46:41PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Hi Frederic,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the summary! Looking forward to your comments...
> > >
> > > > I'm currently working on making nohz_full/nohz_idle runtime toggable
> > > > and some other people seem to be interested as well. So I've dumped
> > > > a few thoughts about some pre-requirements to achieve that for those
> > > > interested.
> > > >
> > > > As you can see, there is a bit of hard work in the way. I'm iterating
> > > > that in https://pad.kernel.org/p/isolation, feel free to edit:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > == RCU nocb ==
> > > >
> > > > Currently controllable with "rcu_nocbs=" boot parameter and/or through nohz_full=/isolcpus=nohz
> > > > We need to make it toggeable at runtime. Currently handling that:
> > > > v1: https://lwn.net/Articles/820544/
> > > > v2: coming soon
> > >
> > > Nice.
> > >
> > > > == TIF_NOHZ ==
> > > >
> > > > Need to get rid of that in order not to trigger syscall slowpath on CPUs that don't want nohz_full.
> > > > Also we don't want to iterate all threads and clear the flag when the last nohz_full CPU exits nohz_full
> > > > mode. Prefer static keys to call context tracking on archs. x86 does that well.
> > > >
> > > > == Proper entry code ==
> > > >
> > > > We must make sure that a given arch never calls exception_enter() / exception_exit().
> > > > This saves the previous state of context tracking and switch to kernel mode (from context tracking POV)
> > > > temporarily. Since this state is saved on the stack, this prevents us from turning off context tracking
> > > > entirely on a CPU: The tracking must be done on all CPUs and that takes some cycles.
> > > >
> > > > This means that, considering early entry code (before the call to context tracking upon kernel entry,
> > > > and after the call to context tracking upon kernel exit), we must take care of few things:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Make sure early entry code can't trigger exceptions. Or if it does, the given exception can't schedule
> > > > or use RCU (unless it calls rcu_nmi_enter()). Otherwise the exception must call exception_enter()/exception_exit()
> > > > which we don't want.
> > > >
> > > > 2) No call to schedule_user().
> > > >
> > > > 3) Make sure early entry code is not interruptible or preempt_schedule_irq() would rely on
> > > > exception_entry()/exception_exit()
> > > >
> > > > 4) Make sure early entry code can't be traced (no call to preempt_schedule_notrace()), or if it does it
> > > > can't schedule
> > > >
> > > > I believe x86 does most of that well. In the end we should remove exception_enter()/exit implementations
> > > > in x86 and replace it with a check that makes sure context_tracking state is not in USER. An arch meeting
> > > > all the above conditions would earn a CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SANE_CONTEXT_TRACKING. Being able to toggle nohz_full
> > > > at runtime would depend on that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > == Cputime accounting ==
> > > >
> > > > Both write and read side must switch to tick based accounting and drop the use of seqlock in task_cputime(),
> > > > task_gtime(), kcpustat_field(), kcpustat_cpu_fetch(). Special ordering/state machine is required to make that without races.
> > > >
> > > > == Nohz ==
> > > >
> > > > Switch from nohz_full to nohz_idle. Mind a few details:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Turn off 1Hz offlined tick handled in housekeeping
> > > > 2) Handle tick dependencies, take care of racing CPUs setting/clearing tick dependency. It's much trickier when
> > > > we switch from nohz_idle to nohz_full
> > > >
> > > > == Unbound affinity ==
> > > >
> > > > Restore kernel threads, workqueue, timers, etc... wide affinity. But take care of cpumasks that have been set through other
> > > > interfaces: sysfs, procfs, etc...
> > >
> > > We were looking at a userspace interface: what would be a proper
> > > (unified, similar to isolcpus= interface) and its implementation:
> > >
> > > The simplest idea for interface seemed to be exposing the integer list of
> > > CPUs and isolation flags to userspace (probably via sysfs).
> > >
> > > The scheme would allow flags to be separately enabled/disabled,
> > > with not all flags being necessary toggable (could for example
> > > disallow nohz_full= toggling until it is implemented, but allow for
> > > other isolation features to be toggable).
> > >
> > > This would require per flag housekeeping_masks (instead of a single).
> > >
> > > Back to the userspace interface, you mentioned earlier that cpusets
> > > was a possibility for it. However:
> > >
> > > "Cpusets provide a Linux kernel mechanism to constrain which CPUs and
> > > Memory Nodes are used by a process or set of processes.
> > >
> > > The Linux kernel already has a pair of mechanisms to specify on which
> > > CPUs a task may be scheduled (sched_setaffinity) and on which Memory
> > > Nodes it may obtain memory (mbind, set_mempolicy).
> > >
> > > Cpusets extends these two mechanisms as follows:"
> > >
> > > The isolation flags do not necessarily have anything to do with
> > > tasks, but with CPUs: a given feature is disabled or enabled on a
> > > given CPU.
> > > No?
> >
> > One cpumask per feature, implemented separately in sysfs, also
> > seems OK (modulo documentation about the RCU update and users
> > of the previous versions).
> >
> > This is what is being done for rcu_nocbs= already...
> >
>
> exclusive cpusets is used now to control scheduler load balancing on
> a group of cpus. It seems to me that this is the same idea and is part
> of the isolation concept. Having a toggle for each subsystem/feature in
> cpusets could provide the needed userspace api.
>
> Under the covers it might be implemented as twiddling various cpumasks.
>
> We need to be shifting to managing load balancing with cpusets anyway.

OK, adding a new file per isolation feature:

- cpuset.isolation_nohz_full
- cpuset.isolation_kthread
- cpuset.isolation_time

With a bool value per file, is an option.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-03 22:47    [W:0.056 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site