Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] sched/deadline: Check bandwidth overflow earlier for hotplug

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>]

On 15/01/2025 16:10, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 14/01/25 15:02, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> On 14/01/25 13:52, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/01/2025 09:32, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/25 18:40, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> With the above I see the following ...
>>>>>
>>>>> [   53.919672] dl_bw_manage: cpu=5 cap=3072 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=209712 dl_bw_cpus=4
>>>>> [   53.930608] dl_bw_manage: cpu=4 cap=2048 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=157284 dl_bw_cpus=3
>>>>> [   53.941601] dl_bw_manage: cpu=3 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=104856 dl_bw_cpus=2
>>>>
>>>> So far so good.
>>>>
>>>>> [   53.952186] dl_bw_manage: cpu=2 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=576708 dl_bw_cpus=2
>>>>
>>>> But, this above doesn't sound right.
>>>>
>>>>> [   53.962938] dl_bw_manage: cpu=1 cap=0 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=576708 dl_bw_cpus=1
>>>>> [   53.971068] Error taking CPU1 down: -16
>>>>> [   53.974912] Non-boot CPUs are not disabled
>>>>
>>>> What is the topology of your board?
>>>>
>>>> Are you using any cpuset configuration for partitioning CPUs?
>>>
>>>
>>> I just noticed that by default we do boot this board with 'isolcpus=1-2'. I
>>> see that this is a deprecated cmdline argument now and I must admit I don't
>>> know the history of this for this specific board. It is quite old now.
>>>
>>> Thierry, I am curious if you have this set for Tegra186 or not? Looks like
>>> our BSP (r35 based) sets this by default.
>>>
>>> I did try removing this and that does appear to fix it.
>>
>> OK, good.
>>
>>> Juri, let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> Thanks for the additional info. I guess I could now try to repro using
>> isolcpus at boot on systems I have access to (to possibly understand
>> what the underlying problem is).
> 
> I think the problem lies in the def_root_domain accounting of dl_servers
> (which isolated cpus remains attached to).
> 
> Came up with the following, of which I'm not yet fully convinced, but
> could you please try it out on top of the debug patch and see how it
> does with the original failing setup using isolcpus?


Thanks I added the change, but suspend is still failing with this ...

[  210.595431] dl_bw_manage: cpu=5 cap=3072 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=209712 dl_bw_cpus=4
[  210.606269] dl_bw_manage: cpu=4 cap=2048 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=157284 dl_bw_cpus=3
[  210.617281] dl_bw_manage: cpu=3 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=104856 dl_bw_cpus=2
[  210.627205] dl_bw_manage: cpu=2 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=262140 dl_bw_cpus=2
[  210.637752] dl_bw_manage: cpu=1 cap=0 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=262140 dl_bw_cpus=1
[  210.645858] Error taking CPU1 down: -16
[  210.649713] Non-boot CPUs are not disabled

Jon

-- 
nvpublic