All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: kbusch@kernel.org (Keith Busch)
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] genirq/affinity: improve __irq_build_affinity_masks()
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:42:04 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190809144204.GA28515@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809102310.27246-2-ming.lei@redhat.com>

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019@06:23:09PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> One invariant of __irq_build_affinity_masks() is that all CPUs in the
> specified masks( cpu_mask AND node_to_cpumask for each node) should be
> covered during the spread. Even though all requested vectors have been
> reached, we still need to spread vectors among left CPUs. The similar
> policy has been taken in case of 'numvecs <= nodes'.
> 
> So remove the following check inside the loop:
> 
> 	if (done >= numvecs)
> 		break;
> 
> Meantime assign at least 1 vector for left nodes if 'numvecs' vectors
> have been spread.
> 
> Also, if the specified cpumask for one numa node is empty, simply not
> spread vectors on this node.
> 
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch at kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-nvme at lists.infradead.org,
> Cc: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei at redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/irq/affinity.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/affinity.c b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> index 6fef48033f96..bc3652a2c61b 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> @@ -129,21 +129,32 @@ 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;
> -
>  		/* 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);
> +		if (!ncpus)
> +			continue;

This shouldn't be possible, right? The nodemsk we're looping  wouldn't
have had that node set if no CPUs intersect the node_to_cpu_mask for
that node, so the resulting cpumask should always have a non-zero weight.

> @@ -153,16 +164,14 @@ static int __irq_build_affinity_masks(unsigned int startvec,
>  			}
>  			irq_spread_init_one(&masks[curvec].mask, nmsk,
>  						cpus_per_vec);
> +			if (++curvec >= last_affv)
> +				curvec = firstvec;

I'm not so sure about wrapping the vector to share it across nodes. We
have enough vectors in this path to ensure each compute node can have
a unique one, and it's much cheaper to share these within nodes than
across them.

>  		}
>  
>  		done += v;
> -		if (done >= numvecs)
> -			break;
> -		if (curvec >= last_affv)
> -			curvec = firstvec;
>  		--nodes;
>  	}
> -	return done;
> +	return done < numvecs ? done : numvecs;
>  }

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq/affinity: improve __irq_build_affinity_masks()
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:42:04 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190809144204.GA28515@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809102310.27246-2-ming.lei@redhat.com>

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 06:23:09PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> One invariant of __irq_build_affinity_masks() is that all CPUs in the
> specified masks( cpu_mask AND node_to_cpumask for each node) should be
> covered during the spread. Even though all requested vectors have been
> reached, we still need to spread vectors among left CPUs. The similar
> policy has been taken in case of 'numvecs <= nodes'.
> 
> So remove the following check inside the loop:
> 
> 	if (done >= numvecs)
> 		break;
> 
> Meantime assign at least 1 vector for left nodes if 'numvecs' vectors
> have been spread.
> 
> Also, if the specified cpumask for one numa node is empty, simply not
> spread vectors on this node.
> 
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
> Cc: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/irq/affinity.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/affinity.c b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> index 6fef48033f96..bc3652a2c61b 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
> @@ -129,21 +129,32 @@ 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;
> -
>  		/* 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);
> +		if (!ncpus)
> +			continue;

This shouldn't be possible, right? The nodemsk we're looping  wouldn't
have had that node set if no CPUs intersect the node_to_cpu_mask for
that node, so the resulting cpumask should always have a non-zero weight.

> @@ -153,16 +164,14 @@ static int __irq_build_affinity_masks(unsigned int startvec,
>  			}
>  			irq_spread_init_one(&masks[curvec].mask, nmsk,
>  						cpus_per_vec);
> +			if (++curvec >= last_affv)
> +				curvec = firstvec;

I'm not so sure about wrapping the vector to share it across nodes. We
have enough vectors in this path to ensure each compute node can have
a unique one, and it's much cheaper to share these within nodes than
across them.

>  		}
>  
>  		done += v;
> -		if (done >= numvecs)
> -			break;
> -		if (curvec >= last_affv)
> -			curvec = firstvec;
>  		--nodes;
>  	}
> -	return done;
> +	return done < numvecs ? done : numvecs;
>  }

  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-09 14:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-09 10:23 [PATCH 0/2] genriq/affinity: two improvement on __irq_build_affinity_masks Ming Lei
2019-08-09 10:23 ` Ming Lei
2019-08-09 10:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] genirq/affinity: improve __irq_build_affinity_masks() Ming Lei
2019-08-09 10:23   ` Ming Lei
2019-08-09 14:42   ` Keith Busch [this message]
2019-08-09 14:42     ` Keith Busch
2019-08-09 23:05     ` Ming Lei
2019-08-09 23:05       ` Ming Lei
2019-08-12  5:06       ` Ming Lei
2019-08-12  5:06         ` Ming Lei
2019-08-09 10:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] genirq/affinity: spread vectors on node according to nr_cpu ratio Ming Lei
2019-08-09 10:23   ` Ming Lei

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=20190809144204.GA28515@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=kbusch@kernel.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.