From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
To: Justin Weaver <jtweaver@hawaii.edu>
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: multiple runqueues in credit2
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:33:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1386984785.3980.96.camel@Solace> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5286 bytes --]
Hi George,
Bot Justin and I were able to reproduce a situation where, on a 2 socket
system (see below), credit2 was activating only 1 runqueue.
That seemed in line with some comment in the sched_credit2.c source
file, such as this one:
/*
* Design:
*
* VMs "burn" credits based on their weight; higher weight means
* credits burn more slowly. The highest weight vcpu burns credits at
* a rate of 1 credit per nanosecond. Others burn proportionally
* more.
*
* vcpus are inserted into the runqueue by credit order.
*
* Credits are "reset" when the next vcpu in the runqueue is less than
* or equal to zero. At that point, everyone's credits are "clipped"
* to a small value, and a fixed credit is added to everyone.
*
* The plan is for all cores that share an L2 will share the same
* runqueue. At the moment, there is one global runqueue for all
* cores.
*/
However, I remembered it different, and looking at init_pcpu() I spotted
this:
/* Figure out which runqueue to put it in */
/* NB: cpu 0 doesn't get a STARTING callback, so we hard-code it to runqueue 0. */
if ( cpu == 0 )
rqi = 0;
else
rqi = cpu_to_socket(cpu);
which looks to me like the code for having one runqueue per socket _is_
there already! That means two things: (1) that comment above is
wrong :-) but, at the same time, (2) this code right here is not
working!
Justin also noticed that init_pcpu() was actually being called twice,
for all pcpus except #0, triggering the following warning:
printk("%s: Strange, cpu %d already initialized!\n", __func__, cpu);
I did some investigation, in the following system:
cpu_topology :
cpu: core socket node
0: 0 0 0
1: 1 0 0
2: 2 0 0
3: 3 0 0
4: 0 1 1
5: 1 1 1
6: 2 1 1
7: 3 1 1
So, what I expect is, for instance, cpu 1 to be on runqueue 0, and cpu 5
on runqueue 1.
The problem is here:
static void *
csched_alloc_pdata(const struct scheduler *ops, int cpu)
{
/* Check to see if the cpu is online yet */
/* Note: cpu 0 doesn't get a STARTING callback */
if ( cpu == 0 || cpu_to_socket(cpu) >= 0 )
init_pcpu(ops, cpu);
else
printk("%s: cpu %d not online yet, deferring initializatgion\n",
__func__, cpu);
return (void *)1;
}
In fact, this is meant to actually call init_pcpu() *only* on pcpu 0
(which don't get the STARTING notification) and on those pcpus that are
already onlined. Unfortunately, "cpu_to_socket(cpu) >= 0" is not (any
longer?) a valid way to check the latter, and in fact init_pcpus() is
always called, even for pcpus that are not identified and inited yet.
That, with cpu_to_socket() returning constantly 0, means all the pcpus
end up in the sole and only runqueue 0.
I verified that removing the right side of the || makes things work (I
enabled some debug output and added some more myself):
(XEN) csched_alloc_pdata for cpu 0 on socket 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 0 to runqueue 0
(XEN) First cpu on runqueue, activating
...
(XEN) CPU 1 APIC 1 -> Node 0
(XEN) csched_vcpu_insert: Inserting d32767v1
(XEN) csched_alloc_pdata for cpu 1 on socket 0
(XEN) csched_alloc_pdata: cpu 1 not online yet, deferring initializatgion
(XEN) Booting processor 1/1 eip 8e000
(XEN) Initializing CPU#1
(XEN) CPU: L1 I cache 64K (64 bytes/line), D cache 64K (64 bytes/line)
(XEN) CPU: L2 Cache: 512K (64 bytes/line)
(XEN) CPU 1(4) -> Processor 0, Core 1
(XEN) CPU1: AMD Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2376 stepping 02
(XEN) csched_cpu_starting on cpu 1
(XEN) Adding cpu 1 to runqueue 0
...
(XEN) CPU 5 APIC 5 -> Node 1
(XEN) microcode: CPU4 collect_cpu_info: patch_id=0x1000086
(XEN) csched_vcpu_insert: Inserting d32767v5
(XEN) csched_alloc_pdata for cpu 5 on socket 0
(XEN) csched_alloc_pdata: cpu 5 not online yet, deferring initializatgion
(XEN) Booting processor 5/5 eip 8e000
(XEN) Initializing CPU#5
(XEN) CPU: L1 I cache 64K (64 bytes/line), D cache 64K (64 bytes/line)
(XEN) CPU: L2 Cache: 512K (64 bytes/line)
(XEN) CPU 5(4) -> Processor 1, Core 1
(XEN) CPU5: AMD Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2376 stepping 02
(XEN) csched_cpu_starting on cpu 5
(XEN) Adding cpu 5 to runqueue 1
...
Now the question is, for fixing this, would it be preferable to do
something along this line (i.e., removing the right side of the || and,
in general, make csched_alloc_pdata() a pcpu 0 only thing)? Or, perhaps,
should I look into a way to properly initialize the cpu_data array, so
that cpu_to_socket() actually returns something '< 0' for pcpus not yet
onlined and identified?
The former is surely quicker, but I think I like the latter better
(provided it's doable). What do you think?
Thanks and Regards,
Dario
--
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next reply other threads:[~2013-12-14 1:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-14 1:33 Dario Faggioli [this message]
2014-01-20 18:16 ` multiple runqueues in credit2 Dario Faggioli
2014-01-20 18:30 ` Processed: " xen
2014-01-20 19:57 ` Dario Faggioli
2014-01-21 10:26 ` Ian Campbell
2014-01-21 10:49 ` Dario Faggioli
2014-01-21 15:24 ` Ian Campbell
2014-01-21 15:55 ` Dario Faggioli
2014-01-21 16:00 ` Processed: " xen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1386984785.3980.96.camel@Solace \
--to=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
--cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=jtweaver@hawaii.edu \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.