Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:01:48 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Theurer <atheurer@redhat.com>,
        Joe Mario <jmario@redhat.com>,
        Sebastian Jug <sejug@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, ming.lei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: add module parameter to not run block kworker on
 isolated CPUs
Message-ID: <ZSilDBknf2yqDKNB@fedora>
References: <20231010142216.1114752-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
 <ZSWb2DNV9cIPYv5H@slm.duckdns.org>
 <ZSXuqZNsyjJk1FGX@fedora>
 <ZShPS46jgVsaBGHY@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZShPS46jgVsaBGHY@slm.duckdns.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tejun,

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:55:55AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:39:05AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > I appreciate that any specific suggestions about dealing with isolated CPUs
> > generically for bound WQ can be shared.
> 
> Oh, all I meant was whether we can at least collect this into or at least
> adjacent to the existing housekeeping / isolcpu parameters. Let's say
> there's someone who really wants to isolated some CPUs, how would they find
> out the different parameters if they're scattered across different
> subsystems?

AFAIK, the issue is reported on RH Openshift environment and it is real use
case, some of CPUs are isolated for some dedicated tasks(such as network polling,
...) by passing "isolcpus=managed_irq nohz_full".

But blk-mq still queue kworker on these isolated CPUs, and cause very long
latency in nvme IO workloads. Joe should know the story much more then me.


Thanks,
Ming