Message-Id: <20070403162349.583adf84.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:23:49 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: getting processor numbers

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:00:50 -0700
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Now it could be argued that the current behaviour is that sane thing: we
> > allow the process to "pin" itself to not-present CPUs and just handle it in
> > the CPU scheduler.
> 
> As a stop-gap solution Jakub will likely implement the sched_getaffinity
> hack.  So, it would realy be best to get the masks updated.
> 
> 
> But all this of course does not solve the issue sysconf() has.  In
> sysconf we cannot use sched_getaffinity since all the systems CPUs must
> be reported.

OK.

This is excecptionally gruesome, but one could run sched_getaffinity()
against pid 1 (init).  Which will break nicely in the OS-virtualised future
when the system has multiple pid-1-inits running in containers...

> 
> > Is it kernel overhead, or userspace?  The overhead of counting the bits?
> 
> The overhead I meant is userland.
> 

OK.  Your cost of counting those bits is proportional to CONFIG_NR_CPUS.

It's a bit sad that sys_sched_get_get_affinity() returns sizeof(cpumask_t),
because that means that userspace must handle 256 or whatever CPUs on a
machine which only has two CPUs.

Does anyone see a reason why sys_sched_getaffinity() cannot be altered to
return maximum-possible-cpu-id-on-this-machine?  That way, your hweight
operation will be much faster on sane-sized machines.

> 
> > Because sched_getaffinity() could be easily sped up in the case where
> > it is operating on the current process.
> 
> If there is possibility to treat this case special and make it faster,
> please do so.  It would be best to allow pid==0 as a special case so
> that callers don't have to find out the TID (which they shouldn't have
> to know).
> 

OK.

Does anyone see a reason why we cannot do this?

--- a/kernel/sched.c~sched_getaffinity-speedup
+++ a/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4381,8 +4381,12 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, cpumas
 	struct task_struct *p;
 	int retval;
 
-	lock_cpu_hotplug();
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+	if (pid) {
+		lock_cpu_hotplug();
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+	} else {
+		preempt_disable();	/* Prevent CPU hotplugging */
+	}
 
 	retval = -ESRCH;
 	p = find_process_by_pid(pid);
@@ -4396,12 +4400,13 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, cpumas
 	cpus_and(*mask, p->cpus_allowed, cpu_online_map);
 
 out_unlock:
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-	unlock_cpu_hotplug();
-	if (retval)
-		return retval;
-
-	return 0;
+	if (pid) {
+		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+		unlock_cpu_hotplug();
+	} else {
+		preempt_enable();
+	}
+	return retval;
 }
 
 /**
_

> 
> > Anyway, where do we stand?  Assuming we can address the CPU hotplug issues,
> > does sched_getaffinity() look like it will be suitable?
> 
> It's only usable for the special case on the OpenMP code where the
> number of threads is used to determine the number of worker threads.
> For sysconf() we still need better support.  Maybe now somebody will
> step up and say they need faster sysconf as well.

I guess we could add a simple sys_get_nr_cpus().  If we want more than that
(ie: topology, SMT/MC/NUMA/numa-distance etc) then it gets much more complex
and sysfs is more appropriate for that.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists