linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] nohz,blk-mq: do not create blk-mq workqueues on nohz dedicated CPUs

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <551AB81F.8020806@kernel.dk>
Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:07:11 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, axboe@...nel.org
CC:	fweisbec@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lcapitulino@...hat.com,
	mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] nohz,blk-mq: do not create blk-mq workqueues on nohz
 dedicated CPUs

On 03/31/2015 08:27 AM, 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@...hat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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;

Is this CPU ever going to queue IO? If yes, then it needs to be mapped. 
If userspace never runs on it and submits IO, then we'll never run 
completions on it nor schedule the associated workqueue. So I really 
don't see how it doesn't already work, as-is.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/