lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] isolcpus: affine kernel threads to specified cpumask
    On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 05:20:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 08:47:36AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
    > >
    > > Hi Frederic,
    > >
    > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:30:00AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:20:16PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > This is a kernel enhancement to configure the cpu affinity of kernel
    > > > > threads via kernel boot option isolcpus=no_kthreads,<isolcpus_params>,<cpulist>
    > > > >
    > > > > When this option is specified, the cpumask is immediately applied upon
    > > > > thread launch. This does not affect kernel threads that specify cpu
    > > > > and node.
    > > > >
    > > > > This allows CPU isolation (that is not allowing certain threads
    > > > > to execute on certain CPUs) without using the isolcpus=domain parameter,
    > > > > making it possible to enable load balancing on such CPUs
    > > > > during runtime (see
    > > > >
    > > > > Note-1: this is based off on Wind River's patch at
    > > > > https://github.com/starlingx-staging/stx-integ/blob/master/kernel/kernel-std/centos/patches/affine-compute-kernel-threads.patch
    > > > >
    > > > > Difference being that this patch is limited to modifying
    > > > > kernel thread cpumask: Behaviour of other threads can
    > > > > be controlled via cgroups or sched_setaffinity.
    > > > >
    > > > > Note-2: MontaVista's patch was based off Christoph Lameter's patch at
    > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/565932/ with the only difference being
    > > > > the kernel parameter changed from kthread to kthread_cpus.
    > > > >
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
    > > >
    > > > I'm wondering, why do you need such a boot shift at all when you
    > > > can actually affine kthreads on runtime?
    > >
    > > New, unbound kernel threads inherit the cpumask of kthreadd.
    > >
    > > Therefore there is a race between kernel thread creation
    > > and affine.
    > >
    > > If you know of a solution to that problem, that can be used instead.
    >
    > Well, you could first set the affinity of kthreadd and only then the affinity
    > of the others. But I can still imagine some tiny races with fork().
    >
    > > >
    > > > > };
    > > > >
    > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_ISOLATION
    > > > > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
    > > > > index b262f47046ca..be9c8d53a986 100644
    > > > > --- a/kernel/kthread.c
    > > > > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
    > > > > @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ struct task_struct *__kthread_create_on_node(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
    > > > > * The kernel thread should not inherit these properties.
    > > > > */
    > > > > sched_setscheduler_nocheck(task, SCHED_NORMAL, &param);
    > > > > - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, cpu_all_mask);
    > > > > + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, cpu_kthread_mask);
    > > >
    > > > I'm wondering, why are we using cpu_all_mask and not cpu_possible_mask here?
    > > > If we used the latter, you wouldn't need to create cpu_kthread_mask and
    > > > you could directly rely on housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_KTHREAD).
    > >
    > > I suppose that either work: CPUs can only be online from
    > > cpu_possible_mask (and is contained in cpu_possible_mask).
    > >
    > > Nice cleanup, thanks.
    >
    > But may I suggest you to do:
    >
    > - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, cpu_all_mask);
    > + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, cpu_possible_mask);
    >
    > as a first step in its own patch in the series. I just want to make sure that change
    > isn't missed by reviewers or bisections, in case someone catches something we
    > overlooked.
    >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/isolation.c b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
    > > > > index 008d6ac2342b..e9d48729efd4 100644
    > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/isolation.c
    > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
    > > > > @@ -169,6 +169,12 @@ static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_setup(char *str)
    > > > > continue;
    > > > > }
    > > > >
    > > > > + if (!strncmp(str, "no_kthreads,", 12)) {
    > > > > + str += 12;
    > > > > + flags |= HK_FLAG_NO_KTHREADS;
    > > >
    > > > You will certainly want HK_FLAG_WQ as well since workqueue has its own
    > > > way to deal with unbound affinity.
    > >
    > > Yep. HK_FLAG_WQ is simply a convenience so that the user does not have
    > > to configure this separately: OK.
    >
    > Also, and that's a larger debate, are you interested in isolating kthreads
    > only or any kind of kernel unbound work that could be affine outside
    > a given CPU?

    Any kind of kernel work.

    > In case of all the unbound work, I may suggest an all-in-one "unbound"
    > flag that would do:
    >
    > HK_FLAG_KTHREAD | HK_FLAG_WQ | HK_FLAG_TIMER | HK_FLAG_RCU | HK_FLAG_MISC
    > | HK_FLAG_SCHED
    >
    > Otherwise we can stick with HK_FLAG_KTHREAD, but I'd be curious about your usecase.
    >
    > Thanks.

    BTW HK_FLAG_SCHED is not settable at the moment.

    Any reason why nohz_full= is not setting it ?

    Thanks

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-03-27 13:10    [W:6.494 / U:2.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site