lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] nohz,blk-mq: do not create blk-mq workqueues on nohz dedicated CPUs
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 05:02:38PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:27:26AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > CPUs with nohz_full do not want disruption from timer interrupts,
> > or other random system things. This includes block mq work.
> >
> > There is another issue with block mq vs. realtime tasks that run
> > 100% of the time, which is not uncommon on systems that have CPUs
> > dedicated to real time use with isolcpus= and nohz_full=
> >
> > Specifically, on systems like that, a block work item may never
> > get to run, which could lead to filesystems getting stuck forever.
> >
> > We can avoid both issues by not scheduling blk-mq workqueues on
> > cpus in nohz_full mode.
> >
> > Question for Jens: should we try to spread out the load for
> > currently offline and nohz CPUs across the remaining CPUs in
> > the system, to get the full benefit of blk-mq in these situations?
> >
> > If so, do you have any preference on how I should implement that?
> >
> > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > block/blk-mq.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > index 4f4bea21052e..1004d6817fa4 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> > #include <linux/sched/sysctl.h>
> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> > #include <linux/crash_dump.h>
> > +#include <linux/tick.h>
> >
> > #include <trace/events/block.h>
> >
> > @@ -1760,6 +1761,10 @@ static void blk_mq_init_cpu_queues(struct request_queue *q,
> > if (!cpu_online(i))
> > continue;
> >
> > + /* Do not schedule work on nohz full dedicated CPUs. */
> > + if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(i))
> > + continue;
>
> I guess in this case, the queue for this CPU will be handled by another CPU?
> Is this an unbound workqueue? I guess it's not but if it is, we should wait for
> the workqueue affinity patchset.

Where is the latest version of that patchset again ?

>
> Also, since we are doing a lot of kernel pre-setting behind nohz full, it would
> be nice to warn the user about each of them in dmesg.
>
> > +
> > hctx = q->mq_ops->map_queue(q, i);
> > cpumask_set_cpu(i, hctx->cpumask);
> > hctx->nr_ctx++;
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-01 04:41    [W:0.069 / U:3.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site