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: <01e0704c-6d69-07ca-8a3b-c2cff498c972@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:09:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/19] x86/resctrl: Add cpumask_any_housekeeping() for
 limbo/overflow
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=c3=a4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@amd.com>,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com,
        D Scott Phillips OS <scott@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        carl@os.amperecomputing.com, lcherian@marvell.com,
        bobo.shaobowang@huawei.com, tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com,
        xingxin.hx@openanolis.org, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@quicinc.com>,
        Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>, peternewman@google.com
References: <20230320172620.18254-1-james.morse@arm.com>
 <20230320172620.18254-9-james.morse@arm.com>
 <8f10581c-63ff-fef5-4f9e-d1ded096528@linux.intel.com>
From:   James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <8f10581c-63ff-fef5-4f9e-d1ded096528@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Ilpo,

On 21/03/2023 15:14, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, James Morse wrote:
> 
>> The limbo and overflow code picks a CPU to use from the domain's list
>> of online CPUs. Work is then scheduled on these CPUs to maintain
>> the limbo list and any counters that may overflow.
>>
>> cpumask_any() may pick a CPU that is marked nohz_full, which will
>> either penalise the work that CPU was dedicated to, or delay the
>> processing of limbo list or counters that may overflow. Perhaps
>> indefinitely. Delaying the overflow handling will skew the bandwidth
>> values calculated by mba_sc, which expects to be called once a second.
>>
>> Add cpumask_any_housekeeping() as a replacement for cpumask_any()
>> that prefers housekeeping CPUs. This helper will still return
>> a nohz_full CPU if that is the only option. The CPU to use is
>> re-evaluated each time the limbo/overflow work runs. This ensures
>> the work will move off a nohz_full CPU once a houskeeping CPU is
> 
> housekeeping
> 
>> available.

>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> index 87545e4beb70..0b5fd5a0cda2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h

>> +/**
>> + * cpumask_any_housekeeping() - Chose any cpu in @mask, preferring those that
>> + *			        aren't marked nohz_full
>> + * @mask:	The mask to pick a CPU from.
>> + *
>> + * Returns a CPU in @mask. If there are houskeeping CPUs that don't use
>> + * nohz_full, these are preferred.
>> + */
>> +static inline unsigned int cpumask_any_housekeeping(const struct cpumask *mask)
>> +{
>> +	int cpu, hk_cpu;
>> +
>> +	cpu = cpumask_any(mask);
>> +	if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu)) {
>> +		hk_cpu = cpumask_nth_andnot(0, mask, tick_nohz_full_mask);
> 
> Why cpumask_nth_and() is not enough here? ..._andnot() seems to alter 
> tick_nohz_full_mask which doesn't seem desirable?

tick_nohz_full_mask is the list of CPUs we should avoid. This wants to find the first cpu
set in the domain mask, and clear in tick_nohz_full_mask.

Where does cpumask_nth_andnot() modify its arguments? Its arguments are const.


Thanks,

James