| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <548E4578.3070209@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:20:40 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
"Gu, Zheng" <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
tangchen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: handle change in cpu-node relationship.
(2014/12/15 11:12), Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 12/14/2014 12:38 AM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>> Although workqueue detects relationship between cpu<->node at boot,
>> it is finally determined in cpu_up().
>> This patch tries to update pool->node using online status of cpus.
>>
>> 1. When a node goes down, clear per-cpu pool's node attr.
>> 2. When a cpu comes up, update per-cpu pool's node attr.
>> 3. When a cpu comes up, update possinle node cpumask workqueue is using for sched.
>> 4. Detect the best node for unbound pool's cpumask using the latest info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/workqueue.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index 07b4eb5..259b3ba 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -266,7 +266,8 @@ struct workqueue_struct {
>> static struct kmem_cache *pwq_cache;
>>
>> static cpumask_var_t *wq_numa_possible_cpumask;
>> - /* possible CPUs of each node */
>> + /* possible CPUs of each node initialized with possible info at boot.
>> + but modified at cpu hotplug to be adjusted to real info. */
>>
>> static bool wq_disable_numa;
>> module_param_named(disable_numa, wq_disable_numa, bool, 0444);
>> @@ -3449,6 +3450,31 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
>> call_rcu_sched(&pool->rcu, rcu_free_pool);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * detect best node for given cpumask.
>> + */
>> +static int pool_detect_best_node(const struct cpumask *cpumask)
>> +{
>> + int node, best, match, selected;
>> + static struct cpumask andmask; /* we're under mutex */
>> +
>> + /* Is any node okay ? */
>> + if (!wq_numa_enabled ||
>> + cpumask_subset(cpu_online_mask, cpumask))
>> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> + best = 0;
>> + selected = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> + /* select a node which contains the most cpu of cpumask */
>> + for_each_node_state(node, N_ONLINE) {
>> + cpumask_and(&andmask, cpumask, cpumask_of_node(node));
>> + match = cpumask_weight(&andmask);
>> + if (match > best)
>> + selected = node;
>> + }
>> + return selected;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>> /**
>> * get_unbound_pool - get a worker_pool with the specified attributes
>> * @attrs: the attributes of the worker_pool to get
>> @@ -3467,7 +3493,6 @@ static struct worker_pool *get_unbound_pool(const struct workqueue_attrs *attrs)
>> {
>> u32 hash = wqattrs_hash(attrs);
>> struct worker_pool *pool;
>> - int node;
>>
>> lockdep_assert_held(&wq_pool_mutex);
>>
>> @@ -3492,17 +3517,7 @@ static struct worker_pool *get_unbound_pool(const struct workqueue_attrs *attrs)
>> * 'struct workqueue_attrs' comments for detail.
>> */
>> pool->attrs->no_numa = false;
>> -
>> - /* if cpumask is contained inside a NUMA node, we belong to that node */
>> - if (wq_numa_enabled) {
>> - for_each_node(node) {
>> - if (cpumask_subset(pool->attrs->cpumask,
>> - wq_numa_possible_cpumask[node])) {
>> - pool->node = node;
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - }
>> - }
>> + pool->node = pool_detect_best_node(pool->attrs->cpumask);
>>
>> if (worker_pool_assign_id(pool) < 0)
>> goto fail;
>> @@ -4567,7 +4582,7 @@ static int workqueue_cpu_up_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
>> int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
>> struct worker_pool *pool;
>> struct workqueue_struct *wq;
>> - int pi;
>> + int pi, node;
>>
>> switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
>> case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
>> @@ -4583,6 +4598,16 @@ static int workqueue_cpu_up_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
>> case CPU_ONLINE:
>> mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
>>
>> + /* now cpu <-> node info is established, update the info. */
>> + if (!wq_disable_numa) {
>
>
>
>> + for_each_node_state(node, N_POSSIBLE)
>> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu,
>> + wq_numa_possible_cpumask[node]);
>
> The wq code try to reuse the origin pwqs/pools when the node still have cpu online.
> these 3 lines of code will cause the origin pwqs/pools be on the road of dying, and
> create a new set of pwqs/pools.
because the result of wq_calc_node_cpumask() changes ?
Do you mean some comment should be added here ? or explaination for your reply for [3/4] ?
Thanks,
-Kame
>
>> + node = cpu_to_node(cpu);
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, wq_numa_possible_cpumask[node]);
>> + }
>> + for_each_cpu_worker_pool(pool, cpu)
>> + pool->node = cpu_to_node(cpu);
>> for_each_pool(pool, pi) {
>> mutex_lock(&pool->attach_mutex);
>>
>> @@ -4951,7 +4976,21 @@ void workqueue_register_numanode(int nid)
>> void workqueue_unregister_numanode(int nid)
>> {
>> struct workqueue_struct *wq;
>> + const struct cpumask *nodecpumask;
>> + struct worker_pool *pool;
>> + int cpu;
>>
>> + /* at this point, cpu-to-node relationship is not lost */
>> + nodecpumask = cpumask_of_node(nid);
>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, nodecpumask) {
>> + /*
>> + * pool is allcated at boot and assumed to be persistent,
>> + * we cannot free this.
>> + * Update to be NUMA_NO_NODE. This will be fixed at ONLINE
>> + */
>> + for_each_cpu_worker_pool(pool, cpu)
>> + pool->node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> + }
>> mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
>> list_for_each_entry(wq, &workqueues, list)
>> wq_release_unbound_numa(wq, nid);
>
--
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