[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210521023802.GE2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 08:08:02 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Scott Cheloha <cheloha@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Geetika Moolchandani <Geetika.Moolchandani1@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/topology: Allow archs to populate distance map
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2021-05-20 20:56:31]:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking at distance
> > of each node from all other nodes. This should work for most
> > architectures and platforms.
> >
> > However there are some architectures like POWER that may not expose
> > the distance of nodes that are not yet onlined because those resources
> > are not yet allocated to the OS instance. Such architectures have
> > other means to provide valid distance data for the current platform.
> >
> > For example distance info from numactl from a fully populated 8 node
> > system at boot may look like this.
> >
> > node distances:
> > node 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> > 0: 10 20 40 40 40 40 40 40
> > 1: 20 10 40 40 40 40 40 40
> > 2: 40 40 10 20 40 40 40 40
> > 3: 40 40 20 10 40 40 40 40
> > 4: 40 40 40 40 10 20 40 40
> > 5: 40 40 40 40 20 10 40 40
> > 6: 40 40 40 40 40 40 10 20
> > 7: 40 40 40 40 40 40 20 10
> >
> > However the same system when only two nodes are online at boot, then the
> > numa topology will look like
> > node distances:
> > node 0 1
> > 0: 10 20
> > 1: 20 10
> >
> > It may be implementation dependent on what node_distance(0,3) where
> > node 0 is online and node 3 is offline. In POWER case, it returns
> > LOCAL_DISTANCE(10). Here at boot the scheduler would assume that the max
> > distance between nodes is 20. However that would not be true.
> >
> > When Nodes are onlined and CPUs from those nodes are hotplugged,
> > the max node distance would be 40.
> >
> > To handle such scenarios, let scheduler allow architectures to populate
> > the distance map. Architectures that like to populate the distance map
> > can overload arch_populate_distance_map().
>
> Why? Why can't your node_distance() DTRT? The arch interface is
> nr_node_ids and node_distance(), I don't see why we need something new
> and then replace one special use of it.
>
> By virtue of you being able to actually implement this new hook, you
> supposedly can actually do node_distance() right too.
Since for an offline node, arch interface code doesn't have the info.
As far as I know/understand, in POWER, unless there is an active memory or
CPU that's getting onlined, arch can't fetch the correct node distance.
Taking the above example: node 3 is offline, then node_distance of (3,X)
where X is anything other than 3, is not reliable. The moment node 3 is
onlined, the node distance is reliable.
This problem will not happen even on POWER if all the nodes have either
memory or CPUs active at the time of boot.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists