[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210729110331.GC301667@lothringen>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:03:31 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] cgroup/cpuset: Add a new isolated cpus.partition
type
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:56:25AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/27/21 7:42 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:18:31AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=TBD
> > >
> > > commit 994fb794cb252edd124a46ca0994e37a4726a100
> > > Author: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2021 13:28:19 -0400
> > >
> > > cgroup/cpuset: Add a new isolated cpus.partition type
> > >
> > > Cpuset v1 uses the sched_load_balance control file to determine if load
> > > balancing should be enabled. Cpuset v2 gets rid of sched_load_balance
> > > as its use may require disabling load balancing at cgroup root.
> > >
> > > For workloads that require very low latency like DPDK, the latency
> > > jitters caused by periodic load balancing may exceed the desired
> > > latency limit.
> > >
> > > When cpuset v2 is in use, the only way to avoid this latency cost is to
> > > use the "isolcpus=" kernel boot option to isolate a set of CPUs. After
> > > the kernel boot, however, there is no way to add or remove CPUs from
> > > this isolated set. For workloads that are more dynamic in nature, that
> > > means users have to provision enough CPUs for the worst case situation
> > > resulting in excess idle CPUs.
> > >
> > > To address this issue for cpuset v2, a new cpuset.cpus.partition type
> > > "isolated" is added which allows the creation of a cpuset partition
> > > without load balancing. This will allow system administrators to
> > > dynamically adjust the size of isolated partition to the current need
> > > of the workload without rebooting the system.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> > Nice! And while we are adding a new ABI, can we take advantage of that and
> > add a specific semantic that if a new isolated partition matches a subset of
> > "isolcpus=", it automatically maps to it. This means that any further
> > modification to that isolated partition will also modify the associated
> > isolcpus= subset.
> >
> > Or to summarize, when we create a new isolated partition, remove the associated
> > CPUs from isolcpus= ?
>
> We can certainly do that as a follow-on.
I'm just concerned that this feature gets merged before we add that new
isolcpus= implicit mapping, which technically is a new ABI. Well I guess I
should hurry up and try to propose a patchset quickly once I'm back from
vacation :-)
> Another idea that I have been
> thinking about is to automatically generating a isolated partition under
> root to match the given isolcpus parameter when the v2 filesystem is
> mounted. That needs more experimentation and testing to verify that it can
> work.
I thought about that too, mounting an "isolcpus" subdirectory withing the top
cpuset but I was worried it could break userspace that wouldn't expect that new
thing to show up.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists