Date:   Sat, 6 Feb 2021 19:43:30 -0500
From:   Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, frederic@...nel.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, abelits@...vell.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        jinyuqi@...wei.com, zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping
 CPUs


On 2/5/21 5:23 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04 2021 at 14:17, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 2/4/21 2:06 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>>> How about adding a new flag for isolcpus instead?
>>>>>
>>>> Do you mean a flag based on which we can switch the affinity mask to
>>>> housekeeping for all the devices at the time of IRQ distribution?
>>> Yes a new flag for isolcpus. HK_FLAG_IRQ_SPREAD or some better name.
>> Does sounds like a nice idea to explore, lets see what Thomas thinks about it.
> I just read back up on that whole discussion and stared into the usage
> sites a bit.
>
> There are a couple of issues here in a larger picture. Looking at it
> from the device side first:
>
> The spreading is done for non-managed queues/interrupts which makes them
> movable by user space. So it could be argued from both sides that the
> damage done by allowing the full online mask or by allowing only the
> house keeping mask can be fixed up by user space.
>
> But that's the trivial part of the problem. The real problem is CPU
> hotplug and offline CPUs and the way how interrupts are set up for their
> initial affinity.
>
> As Robin noticed, the change in 1abdfe706a57 ("lib: Restrict
> cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs") is broken as it can return
> offline CPUs in both the NOHZ_FULL and the !NOHZ_FULL case.

A quick question here, is there any reason why we don't have cpu_online_mask
instead of cpu_possible_mask in the housekeeping_cpumask()?
(not for this particular patch but in general)

>
> The original code is racy vs. hotplug unless the callers block hotplug.
>
> Let's look at all the callers and what they do with it.
>
>   cptvf_set_irq_affinity()     affinity hint
>   safexcel_request_ring_irq()  affinity hint
>   mv_cesa_probe()              affinity hint
>   bnxt_request_irq()           affinity hint
>   nicvf_set_irq_affinity()     affinity hint
>   cxgb4_set_msix_aff()         affinity hint
>   enic_init_affinity_hint(()   affinity hint
>   iavf_request_traffic_irqs()  affinity hint
>   ionic_alloc_qcq_interrupt()  affinity hint
>   efx_set_interrupt_affinity() affinity hint
>   i40e_vsi_request_irq_msix()  affinity hint
>
>   be_evt_queues_create()       affinity hint, queue affinity
>   hns3_nic_set_cpumask()       affinity hint, queue affinity
>   mlx4_en_init_affinity_hint() affinity hint, queue affinity
>   mlx4_en_create_tx_ring()     affinity hint, queue affinity
>   set_comp_irq_affinity_hint() affinity hint, queue affinity
>   i40e_config_xps_tx_ring()    affinity hint, queue affinity
>   
>   hclge_configure              affinity_hint, queue affinity, workqueue selection
>
>   ixgbe_alloc_q_vector()       node selection, affinity hint, queue affinity
>
> All of them do not care about disabling hotplug. Taking cpu_read_lock()
> inside of that spread function would not solve anything because once the
> lock is dropped the CPU can go away.
>
> There are 3 classes of this:
>
>    1) Does not matter: affinity hint
>
>    2) Might fail to set up the network queue when the selected CPU
>       is offline.
>
>    3) Broken: The hclge driver which uses the cpu to schedule work on
>       that cpu. That's broken, but unfortunately neither the workqueue
>       code nor the timer code will ever notice. The work just wont be
>       scheduled until the CPU comes online again which might be never.

Agreed.

> But looking at the above I really have to ask the question what the
> commit in question is actually trying to solve.
>
> AFAICT, nothing at all. Why?
>
>   1) The majority of the drivers sets the hint __after_ requesting the
>      interrupt
>
>   2) Even if set _before_ requesting the interrupt it does not solve
>      anything because it's a hint and the interrupt core code does
>      not care about it at all. It provides the storage and the procfs
>      interface nothing else.
>
> So how does that prevent the interrupt subsystem from assigning an
> interrupt to an isolated CPU? Not at all.
>
> Interrupts which are freshly allocated get the default interrupt
> affinity mask, which is either set on the command line or via /proc. The
> affinity of the interrupt can be changed after it has been populated in
> /proc.
>
> When the interrupt is requested then one of the online CPUs in it's
> affinity mask is chosen.
>
> X86 is special here because this also requires that there are free
> vectors on one of the online CPUs in the mask. If the CPUs in the
> affinity mask run out of vectors then it will grab a vector from some
> other CPU which might be an isolated CPU.
>
> When the affinity mask of the interrupt at the time when it is actually
> requested contains an isolated CPU then nothing prevents the kernel from
> steering it at an isolated CPU. But that has absolutely nothing to do
> with that spreading thingy.
>
> The only difference which this change makes is the fact that the
> affinity hint changes. Nothing else.
>

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Before I posted this patch, I was doing some debugging on a setup where I
was observing some latency issues due to the iavf IRQs that were pinned on
the isolated CPUs.

Based on some initial traces I had this impression that the affinity hint
or cpumask_local_spread was somehow playing a role in deciding the affinity
mask of these IRQs. Although, that does look incorrect after going through
your explanation.
For some reason, with a kernel that had this patch when I tried creating
VFs iavf IRQs always ended up on the HK CPUs.

The reasoning for the above is still not very clear to me. I will investigate
this further to properly understand this behavior.

-- 
Nitesh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists