Testing
=======
* Patch 1:
Fix for cpumask_local_spread() is tested by creating VFs, loading
iavf module and by adding a tracepoint to confirm that only housekeeping
CPUs are picked when an appropriate profile is set up and all remaining
CPUs when no CPU isolation is configured.
* Patch 2:
To test the PCI fix, I hotplugged a virtio-net-pci from qemu console
and forced its addition to a specific node to trigger the code path that
includes the proposed fix and verified that only housekeeping CPUs
are included via tracepoint.
* Patch 3:
To test the fix in store_rps_map(), I tried configuring an isolated
CPU by writing to /sys/class/net/en*/queues/rx*/rps_cpus which
resulted in 'write error: Invalid argument' error. For the case
where a non-isolated CPU is writing in rps_cpus the above operation
succeeded without any error.
Changes from v1:
===============
- Included the suggestions made by Bjorn Helgaas in the commit messages.
- Included the 'Reviewed-by' and 'Acked-by' received for Patch-2.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/51102eebe62336c6a4e584c7a503553b9f90e01c.camel@marvell.com/
Alex Belits (3):
lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
PCI: Restrict probe functions to housekeeping CPUs
net: Restrict receive packets queuing to housekeeping CPUs
drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 5 ++++-
lib/cpumask.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
net/core/net-sysfs.c | 10 +++++++++-
3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--
From: Alex Belits <redacted>
The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
overhead.
Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
available housekeeping CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <redacted>
---
lib/cpumask.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
From: Alex Belits <redacted>
pci_call_probe() prevents the nesting of work_on_cpu() for a scenario
where a VF device is probed from work_on_cpu() of the PF.
Replace the cpumask used in pci_call_probe() from all online CPUs to only
housekeeping CPUs. This is to ensure that there are no additional latency
overheads caused due to the pinning of jobs on isolated CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <redacted>
Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
---
drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Alex Belits <redacted>
With the existing implementation of store_rps_map(), packets are queued
in the receive path on the backlog queues of other CPUs irrespective of
whether they are isolated or not. This could add a latency overhead to
any RT workload that is running on the same CPU.
Ensure that store_rps_map() only uses available housekeeping CPUs for
storing the rps_map.
Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <redacted>
---
net/core/net-sysfs.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Testing
=======
* Patch 1:
Fix for cpumask_local_spread() is tested by creating VFs, loading
iavf module and by adding a tracepoint to confirm that only housekeeping
CPUs are picked when an appropriate profile is set up and all remaining
CPUs when no CPU isolation is configured.
* Patch 2:
To test the PCI fix, I hotplugged a virtio-net-pci from qemu console
and forced its addition to a specific node to trigger the code path that
includes the proposed fix and verified that only housekeeping CPUs
are included via tracepoint.
* Patch 3:
To test the fix in store_rps_map(), I tried configuring an isolated
CPU by writing to /sys/class/net/en*/queues/rx*/rps_cpus which
resulted in 'write error: Invalid argument' error. For the case
where a non-isolated CPU is writing in rps_cpus the above operation
succeeded without any error.
Changes from v1:
===============
- Included the suggestions made by Bjorn Helgaas in the commit messages.
- Included the 'Reviewed-by' and 'Acked-by' received for Patch-2.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/51102eebe62336c6a4e584c7a503553b9f90e01c.camel@marvell.com/
Alex Belits (3):
lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
PCI: Restrict probe functions to housekeeping CPUs
net: Restrict receive packets queuing to housekeeping CPUs
drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 5 ++++-
lib/cpumask.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
net/core/net-sysfs.c | 10 +++++++++-
3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--
Hi,
It seems that the cover email got messed up while I was sending the patches.
I am putting my intended cover-email below for now. I can send a v3 with proper
cover-email if needed. The reason, I am not sending it right now, is that if I
get some comments in my patches I will prefer including them as well in my
v3 posting.
"
This patch-set is originated from one of the patches that have been
posted earlier as a part of "Task_isolation" mode [1] patch series
by Alex Belits [off-list ref]. There are only a couple of
changes that I am proposing in this patch-set compared to what Alex
has posted earlier.
Context
=======
On a broad level, all three patches that are included in this patch
set are meant to improve the driver/library to respect isolated
CPUs by not pinning any job on it. Not doing so could impact
the latency values in RT use-cases.
Patches
=======
* Patch1:
The first patch is meant to make cpumask_local_spread()
aware of the isolated CPUs. It ensures that the CPUs that
are returned by this API only includes housekeeping CPUs.
* Patch2:
This patch ensures that a probe function that is called
using work_on_cpu() doesn't run any task on an isolated CPU.
* Patch3:
This patch makes store_rps_map() aware of the isolated
CPUs so that rps don't queue any jobs on an isolated CPU.
Proposed Changes
================
To fix the above-mentioned issues Alex has used housekeeping_cpumask().
The only changes that I am proposing here are:
- Removing the dependency on CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION that was proposed by
Alex. As it should be safe to rely on housekeeping_cpumask()
even when we don't have any isolated CPUs and we want
to fall back to using all available CPUs in any of the above scenarios.
- Using both HK_FLAG_DOMAIN and HK_FLAG_WQ in all three patches, this is
because we would want the above fixes not only when we have isolcpus but
also with something like systemd's CPU affinity.
Testing
=======
* Patch 1:
Fix for cpumask_local_spread() is tested by creating VFs, loading
iavf module and by adding a tracepoint to confirm that only housekeeping
CPUs are picked when an appropriate profile is set up and all remaining
CPUs when no CPU isolation is configured.
* Patch 2:
To test the PCI fix, I hotplugged a virtio-net-pci from qemu console
and forced its addition to a specific node to trigger the code path that
includes the proposed fix and verified that only housekeeping CPUs
are included via tracepoint.
* Patch 3:
To test the fix in store_rps_map(), I tried configuring an isolated
CPU by writing to /sys/class/net/en*/queues/rx*/rps_cpus which
resulted in 'write error: Invalid argument' error. For the case
where a non-isolated CPU is writing in rps_cpus the above operation
succeeded without any error.
Changes from v1: [2]
===============
- Included the suggestions made by Bjorn Helgaas in the commit message.
- Included the 'Reviewed-by' and 'Acked-by' received for Patch-2.
[1]
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/51102eebe62336c6a4e584c7a503553b9f90e01c.camel@marvell.com/
[2]
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pci/cover/20200610161226.424337-1-nitesh@redhat.com/
Alex Belits (3):
lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
PCI: Restrict probe functions to housekeeping CPUs
net: Restrict receive packets queuing to housekeeping CPUs
drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 5 ++++-
lib/cpumask.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
net/core/net-sysfs.c | 10 +++++++++-
3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--
"
--
Thanks
Nitesh
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Date: 2020-06-23 09:22:41
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 07:45:08PM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
quoted hunk
From: Alex Belits <redacted>
The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
overhead.
Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
available housekeeping CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <redacted>
---
lib/cpumask.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
@@ -205,28 +206,34 @@ void __init free_bootmem_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t mask)*/unsignedintcpumask_local_spread(unsignedinti,intnode){-intcpu;+intcpu,m,n,hk_flags;+conststructcpumask*mask;+hk_flags=HK_FLAG_DOMAIN|HK_FLAG_WQ;+mask=housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);+m=cpumask_weight(mask);/* Wrap: we always want a cpu. */-i%=num_online_cpus();+n=i%m;+while(m-->0){
I are confuzled. What do we need this outer loop for?
Why isn't something like:
i %= cpumask_weight(mask);
good enough? That voids having to touch the test.
Still when you're there, at the very least you can fix the horrible
style:
+ if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)
+ if (n-- == 0)
+ return cpu;
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 07:45:08PM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
quoted
From: Alex Belits <redacted>
The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
overhead.
Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
available housekeeping CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <redacted>
---
lib/cpumask.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
@@ -205,28 +206,34 @@ void __init free_bootmem_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t mask)*/unsignedintcpumask_local_spread(unsignedinti,intnode){-intcpu;+intcpu,m,n,hk_flags;+conststructcpumask*mask;+hk_flags=HK_FLAG_DOMAIN|HK_FLAG_WQ;+mask=housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);+m=cpumask_weight(mask);/* Wrap: we always want a cpu. */-i%=num_online_cpus();+n=i%m;+while(m-->0){
I are confuzled. What do we need this outer loop for?
Why isn't something like:
i %= cpumask_weight(mask);
good enough? That voids having to touch the test.
Makes sense.
Thanks
Still when you're there, at the very least you can fix the horrible
style:
Sure.
quoted
+ if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)
+ if (n-- == 0)
+ return cpu;