lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Kernel-managed IRQ affinity (cont)
Date
Ming,

Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:32:14AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
>> ... this one seems to be more appealing at least to me.
>
> OK, please try the following patch:
>
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/isolation.h b/include/linux/sched/isolation.h
> index 6c8512d3be88..0fbcbacd1b29 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/isolation.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/isolation.h
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ enum hk_flags {
> HK_FLAG_TICK = (1 << 4),
> HK_FLAG_DOMAIN = (1 << 5),
> HK_FLAG_WQ = (1 << 6),
> + HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ = (1 << 7),
> };
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_ISOLATION
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> index 1753486b440c..0a75a09cc4e8 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/task.h>
> #include <uapi/linux/sched/types.h>
> #include <linux/task_work.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
>
> #include "internals.h"
>
> @@ -212,12 +213,33 @@ int irq_do_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask,
> {
> struct irq_desc *desc = irq_data_to_desc(data);
> struct irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(data);
> + const struct cpumask *housekeeping_mask =
> + housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ);
> int ret;
> + cpumask_var_t tmp_mask;
>
> if (!chip || !chip->irq_set_affinity)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - ret = chip->irq_set_affinity(data, mask, force);
> + if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_mask, GFP_KERNEL))
> + return -EINVAL;

That's wrong. This code is called with interrupts disabled, so
GFP_KERNEL is wrong. And NO, we won't do a GFP_ATOMIC allocation here.

> + /*
> + * Userspace can't change managed irq's affinity, make sure
> + * that isolated CPU won't be selected as the effective CPU
> + * if this irq's affinity includes both isolated CPU and
> + * housekeeping CPU.
> + *
> + * This way guarantees that isolated CPU won't be interrupted
> + * by IO submitted from housekeeping CPU.
> + */
> + if (irqd_affinity_is_managed(data) &&
> + cpumask_intersects(mask, housekeeping_mask))
> + cpumask_and(tmp_mask, mask, housekeeping_mask);

This is duct tape engineering with absolutely no semantics. I can't even
figure out the intent of this 'managed_irq' parameter.

If the intent is to keep managed device interrupts away from isolated
cores then you really want to do that when the interrupts are spread and
not in the middle of the affinity setter code.

But first you need to define how that mask should work:

1) Exclude CPUs from managed interrupt spreading completely

2) Exclude CPUs only when the resulting spreading contains
housekeeping CPUs

3) Whatever ...

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-09 21:02    [W:0.051 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site