Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Date: 2014-09-15 05:05:36
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 13:09 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
We have hit a few customer issues with the topology update code (VPHN and PRRN). It would be nice to be able to debug the notifications coming from the hypervisor in both cases to the LPAR, as well as to disable reacting to the notifications, to narrow down the source of the problems. Add a basic level of such functionality, similar to the numa= command-line parameter. Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <redacted> --- This is pretty rough, but has been useful in the field already. I'm not sure if more information would be useful than this basic amount.diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt index 5ae8608ca9f5..6e3b9e3a2ab4 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt@@ -3370,6 +3370,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted. e.g. base its process migration decisions on it. Default is on. + topology_updates= [KNL, PPC, NUMA] + Format: {off | debug} + Specify if the kernel should ignore (off) or + emit more information (debug) when the + hypervisor sends NUMA topology updates to an + LPAR.
Boot-time parameters are kind of a pain, not least because they require a reboot to activate. Does it really need to be a boot param, or could it be a debugfs or sysctl flag? ie. do we need to disable it immediately at boot or would it be OK if it was /etc/rc.local or similar that turned it off ? It looks like arch_update_cpu_topology() is called quite early, from init_sched_domains(), but in that case I don't see how cpu_associativity_changes_mask can be non-zero, ie. we'll never do any work via that path. As far as the debug goes, we could just use pr_debug() with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, it's not quite as easy to enable as a kernel parameter but for the odd bit of debugging it should be fine. I guess the downside there is you have to do some work before you know if you're printing anything out. More below ...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c index d7737a542fd7..72c5ad313cbe 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c@@ -1160,6 +1160,28 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p) } early_param("numa", early_numa); +static int topology_updates_enabled = 1; +static int topology_updates_debug = 0; + +static int __init early_topology_updates(char *p) +{ + if (!p) + return 0; + + if (strstr(p, "off")) { + printk(KERN_INFO "Disabling topology updates\n"); + topology_updates_enabled = 0; + }
Can you add a: #define pr_fmt(fmt) "numa: " fmt At the top of the file and then use pr_xxx() for these?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ if (strstr(p, "debug")) { + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling topology updates debug\n"); + topology_updates_debug = 1; + } + + return 0; +} +early_param("topology_updates", early_topology_updates); + #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG /* * Find the node associated with a hot added memory section for@@ -1546,6 +1568,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void) struct device *dev; int weight, new_nid, i = 0; + if (!topology_updates_enabled) + return 0; +weight = cpumask_weight(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask); if (!weight) return 0;@@ -1610,6 +1635,25 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void) * * And for the similar reason, we will skip all the following updating. */
The comment should stay attached to the check below of updated_cpus, ie. this block should preceed the comment.
+ if (topology_updates_debug) {
+ char *buf = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS*5, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL);
+ cpumask_scnprintf(buf, NR_CPUS*5, &updated_cpus);
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "Topology update for the following CPUs:\n");
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG " %s\n", buf);
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) = %u\n",
+ cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus));Do we really need to print the cpumask? The same information is available below right, just in a more verbose form? Assuming we can skip that we can just use pr_debug() for these I think and drop the debug flag. Or is this a super hot-path that I'm not aware of?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ if (cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) { + for (ud = &updates[0]; ud; ud = ud->next) { + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpu %d moving from node %d " + "to %d\n", ud->cpu, + ud->old_nid, ud->new_nid); + } + } + kfree(buf); + } + if (!cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) goto out;@@ -1807,8 +1851,10 @@ static const struct file_operations topology_ops = { static int topology_update_init(void) { - start_topology_update(); - proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops); + if (topology_updates_enabled) { + start_topology_update(); + proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops); + }
It was already broken, but can you fix the (lack of) error handling here please?
return 0; }
cheers