From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
Cc: 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,
tglx@linutronix.de, davem@davemloft.net,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
stephen@networkplumber.org, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:21:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200623092139.GB4781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200622234510.240834-2-nitesh@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 07:45:08PM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> From: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>
>
> The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
> isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
> it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
> these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
> overhead.
>
> Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
> available housekeeping CPUs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
> ---
> lib/cpumask.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/cpumask.c b/lib/cpumask.c
> index fb22fb266f93..cc4311a8c079 100644
> --- a/lib/cpumask.c
> +++ b/lib/cpumask.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/memblock.h>
> #include <linux/numa.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
>
> /**
> * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask
> @@ -205,28 +206,34 @@ void __init free_bootmem_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t mask)
> */
> unsigned int cpumask_local_spread(unsigned int i, int node)
> {
> - int cpu;
> + int cpu, m, n, hk_flags;
> + const struct cpumask *mask;
>
> + hk_flags = HK_FLAG_DOMAIN | HK_FLAG_WQ;
> + mask = housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);
> + m = cpumask_weight(mask);
> /* Wrap: we always want a cpu. */
> - i %= num_online_cpus();
> + n = i % m;
> + while (m-- > 0) {
I are confuzled. What do we need this outer loop for?
Why isn't something like:
i %= cpumask_weight(mask);
good enough? That voids having to touch the test.
Still when you're there, at the very least you can fix the horrible
style:
> + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)
> + if (n-- == 0)
> + return cpu;
{ }
> + } else {
> + /* NUMA first. */
> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), mask)
> + if (n-- == 0)
> + return cpu;
{ }
>
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> + /* Skip NUMA nodes, done above. */
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu,
> + cpumask_of_node(node)))
> + continue;
No linebreak please.
>
> + if (n-- == 0)
> + return cpu;
> + }
> }
> }
> BUG();
> --
> 2.18.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-23 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-22 23:45 [PATCH v2 0/3] Preventing job distribution to isolated CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-22 23:45 ` [Patch v2 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-23 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-06-23 13:18 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-22 23:45 ` [Patch v2 2/3] PCI: Restrict probe functions to housekeeping CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-22 23:45 ` [Patch v2 3/3] net: Restrict receive packets queuing " Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-23 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-23 11:42 ` Nitesh Narayan Lal
2020-06-23 1:03 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Preventing job distribution to isolated CPUs Nitesh Narayan Lal
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=20200623092139.GB4781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=abelits@marvell.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--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=nitesh@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.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