On 19/02/2025 10:02, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 19/02/25 10:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> I did now.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> Patch-wise I have:
>>
>> (1) Putting 'fair_server's __dl_server_[de|at]tach_root() under if
>>      '(cpumask_test_cpu(rq->cpu, [old_rd->online|cpu_active_mask))' in
>>      rq_attach_root()
>>
>>      https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Z7RhNmLpOb7SLImW@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb
>>
>> (2) Create __dl_server_detach_root() and call it in rq_attach_root()
>>
>>      https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Z4fd_6M2vhSMSR0i@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb
>>
>> plus debug patch:
>>
>>      https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Z6M5fQB9P1_bDF7A@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb
>>
>> plus additional debug.
> 
> So you don't have the one with which we ignore special tasks while
> rebuilding domains?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6spnwykg6YSXBX_@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb/
> 
> Could you please double check again against
> 
> git@github.com:jlelli/linux.git experimental/dl-debug
> 
>> The suspend issue still persists.
>>
>> My hunch is that it's rather an issue with having 0 CPUs left in DEF
>> while deactivating the last isol CPU (CPU3) so we set overflow = 1 w/o
>> calling __dl_overflow(). We want to account fair_server_bw=52428
>> against 0 CPUs.
>>
>> l B B l l l
>>
>>        ^^^
>>        isolcpus=[3,4]
>>
>>
>> cpumask_and(mask, rd->span, cpu_active_mask)
>>
>> mask = [3-5] & [0-3] = [3] -> dl_bw_cpus(3) = 1
>>
>> ---
>>
>> dl_bw_deactivate() called cpu=5
>>
>> dl_bw_deactivate() called cpu=4
>>
>> dl_bw_deactivate() called cpu=3
>>
>> dl_bw_cpus() cpu=6 rd->span=3-5 cpu_active_mask=0-3 cpus=1 type=DEF
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>    cpumask_subset(rd->span, cpu_active_mask) is false
>>
>>    for_each_cpu_and(i, rd->span, cpu_active_mask)
>>      cpus++                                       <-- cpus is 1 !!!
>>
>> dl_bw_manage: cpu=3 cap=0 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=104856 dl_bw_cpus=1 type=DEF span=3-5
>                                                            ^^^^^^
> This still looks wrong: with a single cpu remaining we should only have
> the corresponding dl server bandwidth present (unless there is some
> other DL task running.
> 
> If you already had the patch ignoring sugovs bandwidth in your set, could
> you please share the full dmesg?


Attached is the full dmesg from my board with your latest branch. I have 
not been able to get to the traces yet, because I am using the same 
board to debug another issue.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic