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;
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 21:48:29 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Scott Cheloha <cheloha@linux.ibm.com>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Geetika Moolchandani <Geetika.Moolchandani1@ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/topology: Allow archs to populate distance map
Message-ID: <20210524161829.GL2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20210520154427.1041031-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20210520154427.1041031-2-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <YKaw33d71FpHjGnR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210521023802.GE2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <YKdr0g6+eIHncqej@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210521092830.GF2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87k0no6wuu.mognet@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87k0no6wuu.mognet@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

* Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:

> On 21/05/21 14:58, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2021-05-21 10:14:10]:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:08:02AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2021-05-20 20:56:31]:
> >> >
> >> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> > > > Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking at distance
> >> > > > of each node from all other nodes. This should work for most
> >> > > > architectures and platforms.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > However there are some architectures like POWER that may not expose
> >> > > > the distance of nodes that are not yet onlined because those resources
> >> > > > are not yet allocated to the OS instance. Such architectures have
> >> > > > other means to provide valid distance data for the current platform.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > For example distance info from numactl from a fully populated 8 node
> >> > > > system at boot may look like this.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > node distances:
> >> > > > node   0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
> >> > > >   0:  10  20  40  40  40  40  40  40
> >> > > >   1:  20  10  40  40  40  40  40  40
> >> > > >   2:  40  40  10  20  40  40  40  40
> >> > > >   3:  40  40  20  10  40  40  40  40
> >> > > >   4:  40  40  40  40  10  20  40  40
> >> > > >   5:  40  40  40  40  20  10  40  40
> >> > > >   6:  40  40  40  40  40  40  10  20
> >> > > >   7:  40  40  40  40  40  40  20  10
> >> > > >
> >> > > > However the same system when only two nodes are online at boot, then the
> >> > > > numa topology will look like
> >> > > > node distances:
> >> > > > node   0   1
> >> > > >   0:  10  20
> >> > > >   1:  20  10
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It may be implementation dependent on what node_distance(0,3) where
> >> > > > node 0 is online and node 3 is offline. In POWER case, it returns
> >> > > > LOCAL_DISTANCE(10). Here at boot the scheduler would assume that the max
> >> > > > distance between nodes is 20. However that would not be true.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > When Nodes are onlined and CPUs from those nodes are hotplugged,
> >> > > > the max node distance would be 40.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To handle such scenarios, let scheduler allow architectures to populate
> >> > > > the distance map. Architectures that like to populate the distance map
> >> > > > can overload arch_populate_distance_map().
> >> > >
> >> > > Why? Why can't your node_distance() DTRT? The arch interface is
> >> > > nr_node_ids and node_distance(), I don't see why we need something new
> >> > > and then replace one special use of it.
> >> > >
> >> > > By virtue of you being able to actually implement this new hook, you
> >> > > supposedly can actually do node_distance() right too.
> >> >
> >> > Since for an offline node, arch interface code doesn't have the info.
> >> > As far as I know/understand, in POWER, unless there is an active memory or
> >> > CPU that's getting onlined, arch can't fetch the correct node distance.
> >> >
> >> > Taking the above example: node 3 is offline, then node_distance of (3,X)
> >> > where X is anything other than 3, is not reliable. The moment node 3 is
> >> > onlined, the node distance is reliable.
> >> >
> >> > This problem will not happen even on POWER if all the nodes have either
> >> > memory or CPUs active at the time of boot.
> >>
> >> But then how can you implement this new hook? Going by the fact that
> >> both nr_node_ids and distance_ref_points_depth are fixed, how many
> >> possible __node_distance() configurations are there left?
> >>
> >
> > distance_ref_point_depth is provided as a different property and is readily
> > available at boot. The new api will use just use that. So based on the
> > distance_ref_point_depth, we know all possible node distances for that
> > platform.
> >
> > For an offline node, we don't have that specific nodes distance_lookup_table
> > array entries. Each array would be of distance_ref_point_depth entries.
> > Without the distance_lookup_table for an array populated, we will not be
> > able to tell how far the node is with respect to other nodes.
> >
> > We can lookup the correct distance_lookup_table for a node based on memory
> > or the CPUs attached to that node. Since in an offline node, both of them
> > would not be around, the distance_lookup_table will have stale values.
> >
> 
> Ok so from your arch you can figure out the *size* of the set of unique
> distances, but not the individual node_distance(a, b)... That's quite
> unfortunate.

Yes, thats true.

> 
> I suppose one way to avoid the hook would be to write some "fake" distance
> values into your distance_lookup_table[] for offline nodes using your
> distance_ref_point_depth thing, i.e. ensure an iteration of
> node_distance(a, b) covers all distance values [1]. You can then keep patch
> 3 around, and that should roughly be it.
> 

Yes, this would suffice but to me its not very clean.
static int found[distance_ref_point_depth];

for_each_node(node){
	int i, nd, distance = LOCAL_DISTANCE;
		goto out;

	nd = node_distance(node, first_online_node)
	for (i=0; i < distance_ref_point_depth; i++, distance *= 2) {
		if (node_online) {
			if (distance != nd)
				continue;
			found[i] ++;
			break;
		}
		if (found[i])
			continue;
		distance_lookup_table[node][i] = distance_lookup_table[first_online_node][i];
		found[i] ++;
		break;
	}
}

But do note: We are setting a precedent for node distance between two nodes
to change.


> 
> >> The example provided above does not suggest there's much room for
> >> alternatives, and hence for actual need of this new interface.
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Thanks and Regards
> > Srikar Dronamraju

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju