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;
Message-ID: <5ff103f9-1366-0a9b-bd97-419ced1de07f@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:14:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Free DL BW in case can_attach() fails
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        luca.abeni@santannapisa.it, claudio@evidence.eu.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, bristot@redhat.com,
        mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@google.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
References: <20230329125558.255239-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20230329125558.255239-6-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <f8dfc30b-5079-2f44-7ab1-42ac25bd48b7@redhat.com>
 <f8baea06-eeda-439a-3699-1cad7cde659e@redhat.com>
 <cdede77a-5dc5-8933-a444-a2046b074b12@arm.com>
 <b7ad39b1-c615-3ebc-6980-d9db0f2ab0a0@redhat.com>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <b7ad39b1-c615-3ebc-6980-d9db0f2ab0a0@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 29/03/2023 20:09, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 3/29/23 12:39, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 29/03/2023 16:31, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 3/29/23 10:25, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/23 08:55, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>>> From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> @@ -2518,11 +2547,21 @@ static int cpuset_can_attach(struct
>>>>> cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>>>>    static void cpuset_cancel_attach(struct cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>>>>    {
>>>>>        struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>>>>> +    struct cpuset *cs;
>>>>>          cgroup_taskset_first(tset, &css);
>>>>> +    cs = css_cs(css);
>>>>>          mutex_lock(&cpuset_mutex);
>>>>> -    css_cs(css)->attach_in_progress--;
>>>>> +    cs->attach_in_progress--;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (cs->nr_migrate_dl_tasks) {
>>>>> +        int cpu = cpumask_any(cs->effective_cpus);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        dl_bw_free(cpu, cs->sum_migrate_dl_bw);
>>>>> +        reset_migrate_dl_data(cs);
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>> Another nit that I have is that you may have to record also the cpu
>>> where the DL bandwidth is allocated in cpuset_can_attach() and free the
>>> bandwidth back into that cpu or there can be an underflow if another cpu
>>> is chosen.
>> Many thanks for the review!
>>
>> But isn't the DL BW control `struct dl_bw` per `struct root_domain`
>> which is per exclusive cpuset. So as long cpu is from
>> `cs->effective_cpus` shouldn't this be fine?
> 
> Sorry for my ignorance on how the deadline bandwidth operation work. I
> check the bandwidth code and find that we are storing the bandwidth
> information in the root domain, not on the cpu. That shouldn't be a
> concern then.
> 
> However, I still have some question on how that works when dealing with
> cpuset. First of all, not all the CPUs in a given root domains are in
> the cpuset. So there may be enough bandwidth on the root domain, but it
> doesn't mean there will be enough bandwidth in the set of CPUs in a
> particular cpuset. Secondly, how do you deal with isolated CPUs that do
> not have a corresponding root domain? It is now possible to create a
> cpuset with isolated CPUs.

Sorry, I overlooked this email somehow.

IMHO, this is only done for exclusive cpusets:

  cpuset_can_attach()

    if (!cpumask_intersects(oldcs->effective_cpus, cs->effective_cpus))

So they should have their own root_domain congruent to their cpumask.