[RESEND PATCH 0/2] Fix IRQ round-robing w/o irqbalance on pseries

[RESEND PATCH 0/2] Fix IRQ round-robing w/o irqbalance on pseries

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

We have received reports on power systems not running irqbalance where
all interrupts are being routed to CPU0 rather than being interleaved by
default across the system. Current firmware only allows either sending
interrupts to all CPUs or sending them to one CPU. The following two
patches address this issue by fixing the mask used in generic code and
by fixing the check for the "all" setting in the pseries code.

Nishanth Aravamudan (2):
  IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity
  pseries/xics: use cpu_possible_mask rather than cpu_all_mask

 arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c |    2 +-
 kernel/irq/manage.c                   |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

[RESEND PATCH 1/2] IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

The use of online_mask requires architecture code to be hotplug-aware to
account for IRQ round-robin'ing. With user-driven dynamic SMT, this
could commonly occur even without physical hotplug. Without this change
and "pseries/xics: use cpu_possible_mask rather than cpu_all_mask", IRQs
are all routed to CPU0 on power machines with XICS not running
irqbalance.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
---
I have boot-tested this on ppc64, but not yet on x86/x86_64. This is
generic-code, and perhaps an audit of all .set_affinity functions should
occur before upstream acceptance?
---
 kernel/irq/manage.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
index c3003e9..ef85b95 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static int setup_affinity(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
 			desc->status &= ~IRQ_AFFINITY_SET;
 	}
 
-	cpumask_and(desc->affinity, cpu_online_mask, irq_default_affinity);
+	cpumask_and(desc->affinity, cpu_possible_mask, irq_default_affinity);
 set_affinity:
 	desc->chip->set_affinity(irq, desc->affinity);
 
-- 
1.7.0.4

[RESEND PATCH 2/2] pseries/xics: use cpu_possible_mask rather than cpu_all_mask

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

Current firmware only allows us to send IRQs to the first processor or
all processors. We currently check to see if the passed in mask is equal
to the all_mask, but the firmware is only considering whether the
request is for the equivalent of the possible_mask. Thus, we think the
request is for some subset of CPUs and only assign IRQs to the first CPU
(on systems without irqbalance running) as evidenced by
/proc/interrupts. By using possible_mask instead, we account for this
and proper interleaving of interrupts occurs.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
index 93834b0..7c1e342 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq, const struct cpumask *cpumask,
 	if (!distribute_irqs)
 		return default_server;
 
-	if (!cpumask_equal(cpumask, cpu_all_mask)) {
+	if (!cpumask_subset(cpu_possible_mask, cpumask)) {
 		int server = cpumask_first_and(cpu_online_mask, cpumask);
 
 		if (server < nr_cpu_ids)
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:

> The use of online_mask requires architecture code to be hotplug-aware to
> account for IRQ round-robin'ing. With user-driven dynamic SMT, this
> could commonly occur even without physical hotplug. Without this change
> and "pseries/xics: use cpu_possible_mask rather than cpu_all_mask", IRQs
> are all routed to CPU0 on power machines with XICS not running
> irqbalance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
> ---
> I have boot-tested this on ppc64, but not yet on x86/x86_64. This is
> generic-code, and perhaps an audit of all .set_affinity functions should
> occur before upstream acceptance?
> ---
>  kernel/irq/manage.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> index c3003e9..ef85b95 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static int setup_affinity(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
>  			desc->status &= ~IRQ_AFFINITY_SET;
>  	}
>  
> -	cpumask_and(desc->affinity, cpu_online_mask, irq_default_affinity);
> +	cpumask_and(desc->affinity, cpu_possible_mask, irq_default_affinity);

Hmm, that looks dangerous. And auditing everything is rather horrible
especially when we need to add cpumask_and(..., cpu_online_mask, ..)
all over the place.

We should rather have something like:

cpumask_var_t *cpumask_restrict_to = &cpu_online_mask;

+	cpumask_and(desc->affinity, *cpumask_restrict_to, irq_default_affinity);

So an arch can override it in arch_early_irq_init().

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 14:26 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> The use of online_mask requires architecture code to be hotplug-aware to
> account for IRQ round-robin'ing. 

Architectures that support hotplug should be hotplug aware, that's not
too much to ask imho.

> With user-driven dynamic SMT,

What's that?

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity

[Sonny Rao]

On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 
> > The use of online_mask requires architecture code to be hotplug-aware to
> > account for IRQ round-robin'ing. With user-driven dynamic SMT, this
> > could commonly occur even without physical hotplug. Without this change
> > and "pseries/xics: use cpu_possible_mask rather than cpu_all_mask", IRQs
> > are all routed to CPU0 on power machines with XICS not running
> > irqbalance.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > I have boot-tested this on ppc64, but not yet on x86/x86_64. This is
> > generic-code, and perhaps an audit of all .set_affinity functions should
> > occur before upstream acceptance?
> > ---
> >  kernel/irq/manage.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > index c3003e9..ef85b95 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static int setup_affinity(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
> >  			desc->status &= ~IRQ_AFFINITY_SET;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	cpumask_and(desc->affinity, cpu_online_mask, irq_default_affinity);
> > +	cpumask_and(desc->affinity, cpu_possible_mask, irq_default_affinity);
> 
> Hmm, that looks dangerous. And auditing everything is rather horrible
> especially when we need to add cpumask_and(..., cpu_online_mask, ..)
> all over the place.

I'm not sure it's that dangerous, because we already have a code path
today which should force the lower level arch code to sanity check vs
online_mask -- namely when a user sets the affinity from /proc/ 

irq_affinity_proc_write() -> irq_set_affinity() ->
     desc->chip->set_affinity(irq, cpumask)

The proc code does check to see that there is at least some
intersection with online_cpus -- but it's not strong enough to tell us
whether there are any offline cpus in the mask. 

It will obviously depend on the specific interrupt controller
architectures -- I guess it's possible that some would allow offline
cpus to be in the mask and intelligently skip over them.

So that makes me think the arch code has to check this _anyway_
since the generic code can't make assumptions about how interrupt
controllers operate.  

But, I started wondering if we're already broken here..

and I did a bit of reviewing of the arch code which implements that
set_affinity function just to see what various architecutres are doing


x86 has: 
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity   = set_ioapic_affinity_irq,
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity   = set_ir_ioapic_affinity_irq,
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity   = set_msi_irq_affinity,
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity   = ir_set_msi_irq_affinity,
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity = dmar_msi_set_affinity,
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity = ir_set_msi_irq_affinity,
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity = hpet_msi_set_affinity,
kernel/apic/io_apic.c:  .set_affinity   = set_ht_irq_affinity,
kernel/uv_irq.c:        .set_affinity   = uv_set_irq_affinity,

all of these end up checking vs online by calling set_desc_affinity()
with the exception of set_ir_ioapic_affinity_irq which does the check 
by calling migrate_ioapic_irq_desc()


powerpc has:

platforms/pseries/xics.c:       .set_affinity = xics_set_affinity
platforms/pseries/xics.c:       .set_affinity = xics_set_affinity
sysdev/mpic_u3msi.c:    .set_affinity   = mpic_set_affinity,
sysdev/mpic_pasemi_msi.c:       .set_affinity   = mpic_set_affinity,
sysdev/mpic.c:          mpic->hc_irq.set_affinity = mpic_set_affinity;
sysdev/mpic.c:          mpic->hc_ht_irq.set_affinity = mpic_set_affinity;

both xics_set_affinity and  mpic_set_affinity both AND the mask
parameter with cpu_online_mask 

in mips:

cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c:     .set_affinity = octeon_irq_ciu0_set_affinity_v2,
cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c:     .set_affinity = octeon_irq_ciu0_set_affinity,
cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c:     .set_affinity = octeon_irq_ciu1_set_affinity_v2,
cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c:     .set_affinity = octeon_irq_ciu1_set_affinity,
kernel/irq-gic.c:       .set_affinity   =       gic_set_affinity,
kernel/i8259.c: .set_affinity   = plat_set_irq_affinity,
sibyte/bcm1480/irq.c:   .set_affinity = bcm1480_set_affinity
sibyte/sb1250/irq.c:    .set_affinity = sb1250_set_affinity


octeon functions are iterating over online cpus
gic_set_affinity is anding with cpu_online_mask
plat_set_irq_affinity is checking for online

bcm1480_set_affinity and sb1250_set_affinity are _not_ checking vs online explicitly

in ia64:

hp/sim/hpsim_irq.c:     .set_affinity = hpsim_set_affinity_noop,
kernel/iosapic.c:       .set_affinity = iosapic_set_affinity
kernel/iosapic.c:       .set_affinity = iosapic_set_affinity
kernel/msi_ia64.c:      .set_affinity   = ia64_set_msi_irq_affinity,
kernel/msi_ia64.c:      .set_affinity = dmar_msi_set_affinity,
sn/kernel/msi_sn.c:     .set_affinity   = sn_set_msi_irq_affinity,
sn/kernel/irq.c:        .set_affinity   = sn_set_affinity_irq

 iosapic_set_affinity() does a check by anding the mask with cpu_online_mask

 ia64_set_msi_irq_affinity and dmar_msi_set_affinity
  both only check to see that the first cpu in the mask is online --
  (not sure why, maybe that's the only requirement for their interrupt controller?)

 in sn_set_msi_irq_affinity -- is _not_ doing explicit checking vs
 online mask (maybe their firmware will tell them if they're
 doing something illegal?)

in sparc:
kernel/irq_64.c:        .set_affinity   = sun4u_set_affinity,
kernel/irq_64.c:        .set_affinity   = sun4v_set_affinity,
kernel/irq_64.c:        .set_affinity   = sun4v_virt_set_affinity,
 
does no explicit checks of online cpus, but they seem to be making firmware
calls which can return an error 


other architectures including:
arm
alpha
blackfin
cris

do _not_ appear to be checking the online mask
I'm not sure that these architectures support CPU hotplug either
though so perhaps it's not an issue... does hotplug because of power
management make it a broader problem ?

So, my basic point is that many of the low level arch specific
functions are checking, some do not and that *might* be a problem 
for people trying to set affinity via proc
also that the generic code is making an assumption that
cpu_online_mask is the correct mask -- which I believe may not be
correct for everybody -- especially not for some powerpc platforms.


Sonny

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity

[Sonny Rao]

On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 01:01:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 14:26 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > The use of online_mask requires architecture code to be hotplug-aware to
> > account for IRQ round-robin'ing. 
> 
> Architectures that support hotplug should be hotplug aware, that's not
> too much to ask imho.

It seems like most architectures support HOTPLUG_CPU
a quick grep for HOTPLUG_CPU in arch shows:
arm
blackfin
ia64
m32r
mips
mn10300
parisc
powerpc
s390
sh
sparc
x86

also see my reply to Thomas -- it appears that many of the interrupt
controller implementations enforce only affinitizing to online cpus

The other point is, as this is generic code, it's making an assumption
that online cpus is the right mask to test against and we know of at
least one case where this isn't quite correct.

> > With user-driven dynamic SMT,
> 
> What's that?

Well, that is basically a feature where we can use CPU hotplug to
force a particular mode on an SMT (hardware multithreaded) processor 

The point here was really that on such multi-threaded processors -- which are
becoming more common -- cpu hotplug can potentially be used fairly
often.


Sonny

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:02 -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
> > > With user-driven dynamic SMT,
> > 
> > What's that?
> 
> Well, that is basically a feature where we can use CPU hotplug to
> force a particular mode on an SMT (hardware multithreaded) processor 
> 
> The point here was really that on such multi-threaded processors -- which are
> becoming more common -- cpu hotplug can potentially be used fairly
> often. 

I guess you're talking about the trainwreck called power7? Where you
want to force the thing into SMT1/2 mode instead of letting it degrade
into SMT4 mode?

Why would you want to change that often? Do realize that cpu-hotplug is
a very heavy, very expensive operation, doing it more than a few times
an hour counts as excessive in my book.

For RT I've been thinking of extending cpusets with a feature that
allows you to disable things like SMT and MC on a set, ensuring you get
no pipeline/cache interference.

But this is something you setup once and then run your workload, its not
something you'll change often (in fact, hotplugging cpus will utterly
wreck your RT workload).

Also, I don't see why you would want to have interrupts with affinity to
offline cpus only, that sounds plain wrong, an offline'd cpu is not able
to deal with interrupts.

I wish people would stop abusing hotplug as:
  - resource management
  - power management
  - other crazy ass things

Its not suitable for those..

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] IRQ: use cpu_possible_mask rather than online_mask in setup_affinity

[Sonny Rao]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 08:48:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:02 -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
> > > > With user-driven dynamic SMT,
> > > 
> > > What's that?
> > 
> > Well, that is basically a feature where we can use CPU hotplug to
> > force a particular mode on an SMT (hardware multithreaded) processor 
> > 
> > The point here was really that on such multi-threaded processors -- which are
> > becoming more common -- cpu hotplug can potentially be used fairly
> > often. 
> 
> I guess you're talking about the trainwreck called power7? Where you
> want to force the thing into SMT1/2 mode instead of letting it degrade
> into SMT4 mode?

This is not really Power7 specific, People could do this on *any*
multi-threaded processor just to ensure all core resources get
dedicated to one thread.  I've seen HPC users in particular do this
before.

> Why would you want to change that often? Do realize that cpu-hotplug is
> a very heavy, very expensive operation, doing it more than a few times
> an hour counts as excessive in my book.
>
> For RT I've been thinking of extending cpusets with a feature that
> allows you to disable things like SMT and MC on a set, ensuring you get
> no pipeline/cache interference.
> 
> But this is something you setup once and then run your workload, its not
> something you'll change often (in fact, hotplugging cpus will utterly
> wreck your RT workload).

This is exactly what I'm talking about -- there are people who have
multi-threaded processors who want to run long-running batch jobs
and sometimes will want to change the SMT mode of the processor
without rebooting.  CPU hotplug has been used in this manner for some
time.  So it's not something that happens often, but it does happen.
 
> Also, I don't see why you would want to have interrupts with affinity to
> offline cpus only, that sounds plain wrong, an offline'd cpu is not able
> to deal with interrupts.
> 
> I wish people would stop abusing hotplug as:
>   - resource management
>   - power management
>   - other crazy ass things
> 
> Its not suitable for those..

"resource management" is a rather broad term -- I think one of the
major use cases of cpu hotplug is in fact "resource management"
in the sense of a partition or guest VM needs more or less compute
resources.  Multi-threaded processors are also doing a form of
resource management in that they're dividing (or not dividing) the
resources available to a core -- cache, pipelines, functional units,
etc.

If it's not suitable for "resource management" then why does it exist?

Sonny