Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:10:51 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     Leonardo =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=E1s?= <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>, mtosatti@redhat.com,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        fweisbec@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] sched/isolation: Add HK_TYPE_WQ to isolcpus=domain
Message-ID: <20221129121051.GB1715045@lothringen>
References: <20221013184028.129486-1-leobras@redhat.com>
 <20221013184028.129486-4-leobras@redhat.com>
 <Y0kfgypRPdJYrvM3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20221014132410.GA1108603@lothringen>
 <7249d33e5b3e7d63b1b2a0df2b43e7a6f2082cf9.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <7249d33e5b3e7d63b1b2a0df2b43e7a6f2082cf9.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 01:27:25PM -0300, Leonardo Br?s wrote:
> Hello Frederic,
> 
> So, IIUC you are removing all flags composing nohz_full= parameter in favor of a
> unified NOHZ_FULL flag. 
> 
> I am very new to the code, and I am probably missing the whole picture, but I
> actually think it's a good approach to keep them split for a couple reasons:
> 1 - They are easier to understand in code (IMHO):?
> "This cpu should not do this, because it's not able to do WQ housekeeping" looks
> better than "because it's not in DOMAIN or NOHZ_FULL housekeeping"

A comment above each site may solve that.

> 
> 2 - They are simpler for using:?
> Suppose we have this function that should run at a WQ, but we want to keep them
> out of the isolated cpus. If we have the unified flags, we need to combine both
> DOMAIN and NOHZ_FULL bitmasks, and then combine it again with something like
> cpu_online_mask. It usually means allocating a new cpumask_t, and also freeing
> it afterwards.
> If we have a single WQ flag, we can avoid the allocation altogether by using
> for_each_cpu_and(), making the code much simpler.

I guess having a specific function for workqueues would arrange for it.

> 
> 3 - It makes easier to compose new isolation modes:
> In case the future requires a new isolation mode that also uses the types of
> isolation we currently have implemented, it would be much easier to just compose
> it with the current HK flags, instead of having to go through all usages and do
> a cpumask_and() there. Also, new isolation modes would make (2) worse.

Actually having a new feature merged in HK_NOHZ_FULL would make it easier to
handle as it avoids spreading cpumasks. I'm not sure I understand what you
mean.

Thanks.