Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 06:50:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vatika Harlalka <vatikaharlalka@gmail.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched/nohz: Affine unpinned timers to housekeepers
Message-ID: <20150824135018.GE11078@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <1439516774-4614-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20150823054032.GA28133@gmail.com>
 <20150823160101.GA11078@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150824064412.GA11581@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150824064412.GA11581@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2288
Lines: 62

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > here it's fully set - triggering the bug I'm worried about. So what am I 
> > > missing, what prevents CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL from crashing?
> > 
> > The boot CPU is excluded from tick_nohz_full_mask in tick_nohz_init(), which is 
> > called from tick_init() which is called from start_kernel() shortly after 
> > rcu_init():
> > 
> > 	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > 
> > 	if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask)) {
> > 		pr_warning("NO_HZ: Clearing %d from nohz_full range for timekeeping\n", cpu);
> > 		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask);
> > 	}
> > 
> > This happens after the call to tick_nohz_init_all() that does the 
> > cpumask_setall() that you called out above.
> 
> Ah, indeed - I somehow missed that.
> 
> This brings up two other questions:
> 
> 1)
> 
> the 'housekeeping CPU' is essentially the boot CPU. Yet we dedicate a full mask to 
> it (housekeeping_mask - a variable mask to begin with) and recover the 
> housekeeping CPU via:
> 
> +       return cpumask_any_and(housekeeping_mask, cpu_online_mask);
> 
> which can be pretty expensive, and which gets executed in two hotpaths:
> 
> kernel/time/hrtimer.c:  return &per_cpu(hrtimer_bases, get_nohz_timer_target());
> kernel/time/timer.c:    return per_cpu_ptr(&tvec_bases, get_nohz_timer_target());
> 
> ... why not just use a single housekeeping_cpu which would be way faster to pass 
> down to the timer code?

The housekeeping_cpu came later, but that does seem like a good optimization.

> 2)
> 
> What happens if the boot CPU is offlined? (under CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HOTPLUG_CPU0=y)
> 
> I don't see CPU hotplug callbacks fixing up the housekeeping_mask if the boot CPU 
> is offlined.

The tick_nohz_cpu_down_callback() function does this, though in a less
than obvious way.  The tick_do_timer_cpu variable is the housekeeping
CPU that is currently handling timing, and it is not permitted to go
offline.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/