Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Add a retry after refilling the free list when unit_alloc() fails

[Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>]

Hello,

 >  > What is sizeof(struct bpf_cpumask) in your system?
 >
 > In my system, sizeof(struct bpf_cpumask) is 1032.
It was a wrong number. sizeof(struct bpf_cpumask) is actually 16.

On 25. 2. 16. 00:16, Changwoo Min wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 25. 2. 15. 12:51, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>  > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 1:24 AM Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com> 
> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Hello Alexei,
>  >>
>  >> Thank you for the comments! I reordered your comments for ease of
>  >> explanation.
>  >>
>  >> On 25. 2. 14. 02:45, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>  >>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:49 AM Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com> 
> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> The commit log is too terse to understand what exactly is going on.
>  >>> Pls share the call stack. What is the allocation size?
>  >>> How many do you do in a sequence?
>  >>
>  >> The symptom is that an scx scheduler (scx_lavd) fails to load on
>  >> an ARM64 platform on its first try. The second try succeeds. In
>  >> the failure case, the kernel spits the following messages:
>  >>
>  >> [   27.431380] sched_ext: BPF scheduler "lavd" disabled (runtime error)
>  >> [   27.431396] sched_ext: lavd: ops.init() failed (-12)
>  >> [   27.431401]    scx_ops_enable.isra.0+0x838/0xe48
>  >> [   27.431413]    bpf_scx_reg+0x18/0x30
>  >> [   27.431418]    bpf_struct_ops_link_create+0x144/0x1a0
>  >> [   27.431427]    __sys_bpf+0x1560/0x1f98
>  >> [   27.431433]    __arm64_sys_bpf+0x2c/0x80
>  >> [   27.431439]    do_el0_svc+0x74/0x120
>  >> [   27.431446]    el0_svc+0x80/0xb0
>  >> [   27.431454]    el0t_64_sync_handler+0x120/0x138
>  >> [   27.431460]    el0t_64_sync+0x174/0x178
>  >>
>  >> The ops.init() failed because the 5th bpf_cpumask_create() calls
>  >> failed during the initialization of the BPF scheduler. The exact
>  >> point where bpf_cpumask_create() failed is here [1]. That scx
>  >> scheduler allocates 5 CPU masks to aid its scheduling decision.
>  >
>  > ...
>  >
>  >> In this particular scenario, the IRQ is not disabled. I just
>  >
>  > since irq-s are not disabled the unit_alloc() should have done:
>  >          if (cnt < c->low_watermark)
>  >                  irq_work_raise(c);
>  >
>  > and alloc_bulk() should have started executing after the first
>  > calloc_cpumask(&active_cpumask);
>  > to refill it from 3 to 64
> 
> Is there any possibility that irq_work is not scheduled right away on 
> aarch64?
> 
>  >
>  > What is sizeof(struct bpf_cpumask) in your system?
> 
> In my system, sizeof(struct bpf_cpumask) is 1032.
> 
>  >
>  > Something doesn't add up. irq_work_queue() should be
>  > instant when irq-s are not disabled.
>  > This is not IRQ_WORK_LAZY.> Are you running PREEMPT_RT ?
> 
> No, CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is not set.
> 
> Regards,
> Changwoo Min
> 
>