Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] cpumask: Don't waste memory for sysfs cpulist nodes

Phil Auld
2022-09-22T21:43:57Z

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 01:41:40PM -0700 Yury Norov wrote:
> + Petr Štetiar <ynezz@true.cz>,
> + Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 10:49:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Currently the approximation is used which wastes the more memory
> > the more CPUs are present on the system. Proposed change calculates
> > the exact maximum needed in the worst case:
> >
> > NR_CPUS old new
> > ------- --- ---
> > 1 .. 1170 4096 4096
> > 1171 .. 1860 4098 .. 6510 4096
> > ... ... ...
> > 2*4096 28672 19925
> > 4*4096 57344 43597
> > 8*4096 114688 92749
> > 16*4096 229376 191053
> > 32*4096 458752 403197
> > 64*4096 917504 861949
> > 128*4096 1835008 1779453
> > 256*4096 3670016 3670016
> >
> > Under the hood the reccurent formula is being used:
> > (5 - 0) * 2 +
> > (50 - 5) * 3 +
> > (500 - 50) * 4 +
> > (5000 - 500) * 5 +
> > ...
> > (X[i] - X[i-1]) * i
> >
> > which allows to count the exact maximum length in the worst case,
> > i.e. when each second CPU is being listed. For backward compatibility
> > for more than 1170 and less than 1861 CPUs the page size is preserved.
> >
> > For less than 1171 and more than 1 million CPUs the old is being used.
>
> 1861
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2: described better the advantage for 1171..1860 CPUs cases
> > include/linux/cpumask.h | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > index 1b442fb2001f..12cf0905ca74 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > @@ -1122,6 +1122,21 @@ cpumap_print_list_to_buf(char *buf, const struct cpumask *mask,
> > *
> > * for cpumap NR_CPUS * 9/32 - 1 should be an exact length.
> > *
> > + * for cpulist the reccurent formula is being used:
> > + * (5 - 0) * 2 +
> > + * (50 - 5) * 3 +
> > + * (500 - 50) * 4 +
> > + * (5000 - 500) * 5 +
> > + * ...
> > + * (X[i] - X[i-1]) * i
> > + *
> > + * which allows to count the exact maximum length in the worst case,
> > + * i.e. when each second CPU is being listed. For backward compatibility
> > + * for more than 1170 and less than 1861 CPUs the page size is preserved.
> > + *
> > + * For less than 1171 and more than 1 million CPUs the old is being used
> > + * as described below:
> > + *
> > * For cpulist 7 is (ceil(log10(NR_CPUS)) + 1) allowing for NR_CPUS to be up
> > * to 2 orders of magnitude larger than 8192. And then we divide by 2 to
> > * cover a worst-case of every other cpu being on one of two nodes for a
> > @@ -1132,6 +1147,39 @@ cpumap_print_list_to_buf(char *buf, const struct cpumask *mask,
> > */
> > #define CPUMAP_FILE_MAX_BYTES (((NR_CPUS * 9)/32 > PAGE_SIZE) \
> > ? (NR_CPUS * 9)/32 - 1 : PAGE_SIZE)
> > +
> > +#define __CPULIST_FOR_10(x) (((x + 1) / 2 - 0) * 2)
> > +#define __CPULIST_FOR_100(x) (((x + 1) / 2 - 5) * 3)
> > +#define __CPULIST_FOR_1000(x) (((x + 1) / 2 - 50) * 4)
> > +#define __CPULIST_FOR_10000(x) (((x + 1) / 2 - 500) * 5)
> > +#define __CPULIST_FOR_100000(x) (((x + 1) / 2 - 5000) * 6)
> > +#define __CPULIST_FOR_1000000(x) (((x + 1) / 2 - 50000) * 7)
>
> The defs below will be nicer if you make it like this:
>
> #define __CPULIST_FOR_10(x) (((x + 1) / 2 - 0) * 2)
> #define __CPULIST_FOR_100(x) __CPULIST_FOR_10(10) + (((x + 1) / 2 - 5) * 3)
> #define __CPULIST_FOR_1000(x) __CPULIST_FOR_100(100) + (((x + 1) / 2 - 50) * 4)
> ...
>
>
>
> > +#if NR_CPUS < 1861
> > +#define CPULIST_FILE_MAX_BYTES PAGE_SIZE
>
> The comment says:
> for more than 1170 and less than 1861 CPUs the page size is preserved.
>
> Which doesn't look correct. Looks like it should be:
> for less than 1861 CPUs the page size is preserved.
>
> Or I miss something?
>
> > +#elif NR_CPUS < 10000
> > +#define CPULIST_FILE_MAX_BYTES \
> > + (__CPULIST_FOR_10(10) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_100(100) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_1000(1000) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_10000(NR_CPUS))
> > +#elif NR_CPUS < 100000
> > +#define CPULIST_FILE_MAX_BYTES \
> > + (__CPULIST_FOR_10(10) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_100(100) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_1000(1000) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_10000(10000) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_100000(NR_CPUS))
> > +#elif NR_CPUS < 1000000
> > +#define CPULIST_FILE_MAX_BYTES \
> > + (__CPULIST_FOR_10(10) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_100(100) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_1000(1000) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_10000(10000) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_100000(100000) + \
> > + __CPULIST_FOR_1000000(NR_CPUS))
> > +#else
> > #define CPULIST_FILE_MAX_BYTES (((NR_CPUS * 7)/2 > PAGE_SIZE) ? (NR_CPUS * 7)/2 : PAGE_SIZE)
> > +#endif
> >
> > #endif /* __LINUX_CPUMASK_H */
> > --
> > 2.35.1
>
> I'm OK to take this in replace for Phil's version, but the commit that
> introduces CPULIST_FILE_MAX_BYTES is already in mainline: 7ee951acd31a8
> ("drivers/base: fix userspace break from using bin_attributes for cpumap
> and cpulist"). Can you rebase it on top of v6.0-rc6?
>
> Greg, since Andy's version is more precise, I'd like to send a pull
> request with it in -rc7. Can you drop Phil's patch so I'll go with
> this one?
>

This changes the other of the 2 macros and looks like it is already on
top of the fix to CPUMAP_FILE_MAX_BYTES.

It should be able to go right on top of a tree with that one in it, I think.

With the comment fixed up as you note above I'll git Reviewed-by:
and Tested-by: shortly.

This one is a refinement of 7ee951acd31a8 though and is not a critical as
the one Greg was talking about and Petr hit.

Cheers,
Phil

> Thanks,
> Yury
>

--