Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping
 CPUs
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, frederic@kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, abelits@marvell.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
        stephen@networkplumber.org, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        jinyuqi@huawei.com, zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com
References: <20200625223443.2684-1-nitesh@redhat.com>
 <20200625223443.2684-2-nitesh@redhat.com>
 <3e9ce666-c9cd-391b-52b6-3471fe2be2e6@arm.com>
 <20210127121939.GA54725@fuller.cnet> <87r1m5can2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20210128165903.GB38339@fuller.cnet> <87h7n0de5a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20210204181546.GA30113@fuller.cnet>
From:   Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat Inc,
Message-ID: <cfa138e9-38e3-e566-8903-1d64024c917b@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:47:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210204181546.GA30113@fuller.cnet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 2/4/21 1:15 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:01:37PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28 2021 at 13:59, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>> The whole pile wants to be reverted. It's simply broken in several ways.
>>> I was asking for your comments on interaction with CPU hotplug :-)
>> Which I answered in an seperate mail :)
>>
>>> So housekeeping_cpumask has multiple meanings. In this case:
>> ...
>>
>>> So as long as the meaning of the flags are respected, seems
>>> alright.
>> Yes. Stuff like the managed interrupts preference for housekeeping CPUs
>> when a affinity mask spawns housekeeping and isolated is perfectly
>> fine. It's well thought out and has no limitations.
>>
>>> Nitesh, is there anything preventing this from being fixed
>>> in userspace ? (as Thomas suggested previously).
>> Everything with is not managed can be steered by user space.
> Yes, but it seems to be racy (that is, there is a window where the 
> interrupt can be delivered to an isolated CPU).
>
> ethtool ->
> xgbe_set_channels ->
> xgbe_full_restart_dev ->
> xgbe_alloc_memory ->
> xgbe_alloc_channels ->
> cpumask_local_spread
>
> Also ifconfig eth0 down / ifconfig eth0 up leads
> to cpumask_spread_local.

There's always that possibility.

We have to ensure that we move the IRQs by a tuned daemon or some other
userspace script every time there is a net-dev change (eg. device comes up,
creates VFs, etc).

> How about adding a new flag for isolcpus instead?
>

Do you mean a flag based on which we can switch the affinity mask to
housekeeping for all the devices at the time of IRQ distribution?

-- 
Thanks
Nitesh