linux-api.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	frederic@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	abelits@marvell.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: [PATCH v1 0/3] Preventing job distribution to isolated CPUs
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:12:23 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200610161226.424337-1-nitesh@redhat.com> (raw)

This patch-set is originated from one of the patches that have been
posted earlier as a part of "Task_isolation" mode [1] patch series
by Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>. There are only a couple of
changes that I am proposing in this patch-set compared to what Alex
has posted earlier.


Context
=======
On a broad level, all three patches that are included in this patch
set are meant to improve the driver/library to respect isolated
CPUs by not pinning any job on it. Not doing so could impact
the latency values in RT use-cases.


Patches
=======
* Patch1:
  The first patch is meant to make cpumask_local_spread()
  aware of the isolated CPUs. It ensures that the CPUs that
  are returned by this API only includes housekeeping CPUs.

* Patch2:
  This patch ensures that a probe function that is called
  using work_on_cpu() doesn't run any task on an isolated CPU.

* Patch3:
  This patch makes store_rps_map() aware of the isolated
  CPUs so that rps don't queue any jobs on an isolated CPU.


Changes
=======
To fix the above-mentioned issues Alex has used housekeeping_cpumask().
The only changes that I am proposing here are:
- Removing the dependency on CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION that was proposed by Alex.
  As it should be safe to rely on housekeeping_cpumask()
  even when we don't have any isolated CPUs and we want
  to fall back to using all available CPUs in any of the above scenarios.
- Using both HK_FLAG_DOMAIN and HK_FLAG_WQ in all three patches, this is
  because we would want the above fixes not only when we have isolcpus but
  also with something like systemd's CPU affinity.


Testing
=======
* Patch 1:
  Fix for cpumask_local_spread() is tested by creating VFs, loading
  iavf module and by adding a tracepoint to confirm that only housekeeping
  CPUs are picked when an appropriate profile is set up and all remaining CPUs
  when no CPU isolation is required/configured.

* Patch 2:
  To test the PCI fix, I hotplugged a virtio-net-pci from qemu console
  and forced its addition to a specific node to trigger the code path that
  includes the proposed fix and verified that only housekeeping CPUs
  are included via tracepoint. I understand that this may not be the
  best way to test it, hence, I am open to any suggestion to test this
  fix in a better way if required.

* Patch 3:
  To test the fix in store_rps_map(), I tried configuring an isolated
  CPU by writing to /sys/class/net/en*/queues/rx*/rps_cpus which
  resulted in 'write error: Invalid argument' error. For the case
  where a non-isolated CPU is writing in rps_cpus the above operation
  succeeded without any error.

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/51102eebe62336c6a4e584c7a503553b9f90e01c.camel@marvell.com/

Alex Belits (3):
  lib: restricting cpumask_local_spread to only houskeeping CPUs
  PCI: prevent work_on_cpu's probe to execute on isolated CPUs
  net: restrict queuing of receive packets to housekeeping CPUs

 drivers/pci/pci-driver.c |  5 ++++-
 lib/cpumask.c            | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 net/core/net-sysfs.c     | 10 +++++++++-
 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

--  



             reply	other threads:[~2020-06-10 16:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-10 16:12 Nitesh Narayan Lal [this message]
2020-06-10 16:12 ` [Patch v1 1/3] lib: restricting cpumask_local_spread to only houskeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-10 16:12 ` [Patch v1 2/3] PCI: prevent work_on_cpu's probe to execute on isolated CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-16 20:05   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-16 22:03     ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-16 23:22   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-06-10 16:12 ` [Patch v1 3/3] net: restrict queuing of receive packets to housekeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-16 17:26 ` [PATCH v1 0/3] Preventing job distribution to isolated CPUs Marcelo Tosatti

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=20200610161226.424337-1-nitesh@redhat.com \
    --to=nitesh@redhat.com \
    --cc=abelits@marvell.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).