[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8735k6ke34.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:15:11 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 09/11] sched: Introduce per memory space current
virtual cpu id
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> writes:
> Some effective upper bounds for the number of vcpu ids observable in a process:
>
> - sysconf(3) _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF,
> - the number of threads which exist concurrently in the process,
> - the number of cpus in the cpu affinity mask applied by sched_setaffinity,
> except in corner-case situations such as cpu hotplug removing all cpus from
> the affinity set,
> - cgroup cpuset "partition" limits,
>
> Note that AFAIR non-partition cgroup cpusets allow a cgroup to "borrow"
> additional cores from the rest of the system if they are idle, therefore
> allowing the number of concurrent threads to go beyond the specified limit.
>
> AFAIR the sched affinity mask is tweaked independently of the cgroup cpuset.
> Those are two mechanisms both affecting the scheduler task placement.
>
> I would expect the user-space code to use some sensible upper bound as a
> hint about how many per-vcpu data structure elements to expect (and how many
> to pre-allocate), but have a "lazy initialization" fall-back in case the
> vcpu id goes up to the number of configured processors - 1. And I suspect
> that even the number of configured processors may change with CRIU.
>
> If the above explanation makes sense (please let me know if I am wrong
> or missed something), I suspect I should add it to the commit message.
That helps, thanks. I do think that something like this belongs in the
changelog - or, even better, in the upcoming restartable-sequences
section in the userspace-api documentation :)
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists