From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on unbounded queue_delayed_work
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 08:38:25 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZbKqoeC7JVcJULdI@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZbG9TjHAMJYIvwsg@LeoBras>
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:45:50PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> That's a good suggestion, but looking at workqueue_init_early() I see that,
> in short:
> wq_unbound_cpumask = cpu_possible_mask &
> housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_WQ) &
> housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN) &
> wq_cmdline_cpumask
>
> So wq_unbound_cpumask relates to domain and workqueue cpu isolation.
>
> In our case, we are using this to choose in which cpu is the timer we want
> to use, so it makes sense to use timer-related cpu isolation, instead.
- In the proposed code, when cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, it's always setting
cpu to housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER). This may unnecessarily move
the timer and task away from local CPU. Preferring the local CPU would
likely make sense.
- If HK_TYPE_TIMER and workqueue masks may not agree, setting dwork->cpu to
the one returned from HK_TYPE_TIMER is likely problematic. That would
force __queue_work() to use that CPU instead of picking one from
wq_unbound_cpumask.
> As of today, your suggestion would work the same, as the only way to enable
> WQ cpu isolation is to use nohz_full, which also enables TIMER cpu
> isolation. But since that can change in the future, for any reason, I would
> suggest that we stick to using the HK_TYPE_TIMER cpumask.
>
> I can now notice that this can end up introducing an issue: possibly
> running on a workqueue on a cpu outside of a valid wq_cmdline_cpumask.
Yeap.
> I would suggest fixing this in a couple ways:
> 1 - We introduce a new cpumask which is basically
> housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN) & wq_cmdline_cpumask, allowing us
> to keep the timer interrupt in the same cpu as the scheduled function,
> 2- We use the resulting cpu only to pick the right timer.
>
> What are your thouhts on that?
How about something like the following instead?
- If current CPU is in HK_TYPE_TIMER, pick that CPU.
- If not, pick a CPU from HK_TYPE_TIMER.
- Do add_timer_on() on the selected CPU but leave dwork->cpu as
WORK_CPU_UNBOUND and leave that part to __queue_work().
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-25 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-24 8:29 [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on unbounded queue_delayed_work Leonardo Bras
2024-01-24 21:47 ` Tejun Heo
2024-01-25 1:45 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-01-25 18:38 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2024-01-25 21:46 ` Leonardo Bras
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=ZbKqoeC7JVcJULdI@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
/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