Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:29:51 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 21/24] x86/resctrl: Allow overflow/limbo handlers to be scheduled on any-but cpu | From | James Morse <> |
| |
Hi Reinette,
On 15/06/2023 23:25, Reinette Chatre wrote: > On 5/25/2023 11:02 AM, James Morse wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h >> index 021a8956518c..9cba8fc405b9 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h >> @@ -79,6 +79,37 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_any_housekeeping(const struct cpumask *mask) >> return cpu; >> } >> >> +/** >> + * cpumask_any_housekeeping_but() - Chose any cpu in @mask, preferring those >> + * that aren't marked nohz_full, excluding >> + * the provided CPU >> + * @mask: The mask to pick a CPU from. >> + * @exclude_cpu:The CPU to avoid picking. >> + * >> + * Returns a CPU from @mask, but not @but. If there are housekeeping CPUs that > > "but not @exclude_cpu" > >> + * don't use nohz_full, these are preferred. >> + * Returns >= nr_cpu_ids if no CPUs are available. >> + */ >> +static inline unsigned int >> +cpumask_any_housekeeping_but(const struct cpumask *mask, int exclude_cpu) >> +{ >> + int cpu, hk_cpu; > > Should these be unsigned int?
Yup, fixed.
>> + >> + cpu = cpumask_any_but(mask, exclude_cpu); >> + if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu)) { >> + hk_cpu = cpumask_nth_andnot(0, mask, tick_nohz_full_mask); >> + if (hk_cpu == exclude_cpu) { >> + hk_cpu = cpumask_nth_andnot(1, mask, >> + tick_nohz_full_mask); >> + } >> + > > These braces are not necessary.
My C parser is pretty dumb, and is easily confused by things like that....
> If they are added to help readability then > perhaps the indentation can be reduced by using an earlier: > > if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu)) > return cpu;
Even better!
>> + if (hk_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) >> + cpu = hk_cpu; >> + } >> + >> + return cpu; >> +} >> + >> struct rdt_fs_context { >> struct kernfs_fs_context kfc; >> bool enable_cdpl2;
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c >> index ced933694f60..ae02185f3354 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c >> @@ -485,7 +485,7 @@ static void add_rmid_to_limbo(struct rmid_entry *entry) >> * setup up the limbo worker. >> */ >> if (!has_busy_rmid(r, d)) >> - cqm_setup_limbo_handler(d, CQM_LIMBOCHECK_INTERVAL); >> + cqm_setup_limbo_handler(d, CQM_LIMBOCHECK_INTERVAL, -1); > > Should this -1 be RESCTRL_PICK_ANY_CPU? > >> set_bit(idx, d->rmid_busy_llc); >> entry->busy++; >> } >> @@ -810,15 +810,28 @@ void cqm_handle_limbo(struct work_struct *work) >> mutex_unlock(&rdtgroup_mutex); >> } >> >> -void cqm_setup_limbo_handler(struct rdt_domain *dom, unsigned long delay_ms) >> +/** >> + * cqm_setup_limbo_handler() - Schedule the limbo handler to run for this >> + * domain. >> + * @delay_ms: How far in the future the handler should run. >> + * @exclude_cpu: Which CPU the handler should not run on, -1 to pick any CPU. > > Should -1 be RESCTRL_PICK_ANY_CPU? > >> + */ >> +void cqm_setup_limbo_handler(struct rdt_domain *dom, unsigned long delay_ms, >> + int exclude_cpu) >> { >> unsigned long delay = msecs_to_jiffies(delay_ms); >> int cpu; >> >> - cpu = cpumask_any_housekeeping(&dom->cpu_mask); >> - dom->cqm_work_cpu = cpu; >> + if (exclude_cpu == RESCTRL_PICK_ANY_CPU) >> + cpu = cpumask_any_housekeeping(&dom->cpu_mask); >> + else >> + cpu = cpumask_any_housekeeping_but(&dom->cpu_mask, >> + exclude_cpu); >> >> - schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, &dom->cqm_limbo, delay); >> + if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) { >> + dom->cqm_work_cpu = cpu; > > Should cqm_work_cpu not perhaps be set to nr_cpu_ids on failure? If it keeps > pointing to CPU that ran worker previously there may be unexpected behavior. > > Note the different behavior between cqm_setup_limbo_handler() and > mbm_setup_overflow_handler() in this regard.
Sure,
>> + schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, &dom->cqm_limbo, delay); >> + } >> } >> >> void mbm_handle_overflow(struct work_struct *work)
>> diff --git a/include/linux/resctrl.h b/include/linux/resctrl.h >> index ecd41762d61a..089b91133e5e 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/resctrl.h >> +++ b/include/linux/resctrl.h >> @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ >> /* CLOSID value used by the default control group */ >> #define RESCTRL_RESERVED_CLOSID 0 >> >> +/* Indicates no CPU needs to be excluded */ > > This comment seems to just be a rewrite of the macro name.
I'm more than happy to remove it!
Thanks,
James
| |