[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec71ca8a-2550-8e01-7830-6e9f62ee4e95@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:52:52 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: <babu.moger@....com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "fenghua.yu@...el.com" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com" <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
"songmuchun@...edance.com" <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"chang.seok.bae@...el.com" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
"pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com"
<pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com" <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
"Das1, Sandipan" <Sandipan.Das@....com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"christophe.leroy@...roup.eu" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
"adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"quic_jiles@...cinc.com" <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
"peternewman@...gle.com" <peternewman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] x86/resctrl: Add multiple tasks to the resctrl
group at once
Hi Babu,
On 3/20/2023 8:07 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> On 3/16/23 15:33, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 3/16/2023 12:51 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>> On 3/16/23 12:12, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2023 9:27 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 1:33 PM
>>>>>> To: Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@....com>; corbet@....net;
>>>>>> tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; bp@...en8.de
>>>>>> Cc: fenghua.yu@...el.com; dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com; x86@...nel.org;
>>>>>> hpa@...or.com; paulmck@...nel.org; akpm@...ux-foundation.org;
>>>>>> quic_neeraju@...cinc.com; rdunlap@...radead.org;
>>>>>> damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com; songmuchun@...edance.com;
>>>>>> peterz@...radead.org; jpoimboe@...nel.org; pbonzini@...hat.com;
>>>>>> chang.seok.bae@...el.com; pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com;
>>>>>> jmattson@...gle.com; daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com; Das1, Sandipan
>>>>>> <Sandipan.Das@....com>; tony.luck@...el.com; james.morse@....com;
>>>>>> linux-doc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
>>>>>> bagasdotme@...il.com; eranian@...gle.com; christophe.leroy@...roup.eu;
>>>>>> jarkko@...nel.org; adrian.hunter@...el.com; quic_jiles@...cinc.com;
>>>>>> peternewman@...gle.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] x86/resctrl: Add multiple tasks to the resctrl group
>>>>>> at once
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Babu,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2023 12:24 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>>>>> The resctrl task assignment for MONITOR or CONTROL group needs to be
>>>>>>> done one at a time. For example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $mount -t resctrl resctrl /sys/fs/resctrl/
>>>>>>> $mkdir /sys/fs/resctrl/clos1
>>>>>>> $echo 123 > /sys/fs/resctrl/clos1/tasks
>>>>>>> $echo 456 > /sys/fs/resctrl/clos1/tasks
>>>>>>> $echo 789 > /sys/fs/resctrl/clos1/tasks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not user-friendly when dealing with hundreds of tasks. Also,
>>>>>>> there is a syscall overhead for each command executed from user space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To support this change it may also be helpful to add that moving tasks take the
>>>>>> mutex so attempting to move tasks in parallel will not achieve a significant
>>>>>> performance gain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree. It may not be significant performance gain. Will remove this line.
>>>>
>>>> It does not sound as though you are actually responding to my comment.
>>>
>>> I am confused. I am already saying there is syscall overhead for each
>>> command if we move the tasks one by one. Now do you want me to add "moving
>>> tasks take the mutex so attempting to move tasks in parallel will not
>>> achieve a significant performance gain".
>>>
>>> It is contradictory, So, I wanted to remove the line about performance.
>>> Did I still miss something?
>>
>> Where is the contradiction?
>>
>> Consider your example:
>> $echo 123 > /sys/fs/resctrl/clos1/tasks
>> $echo 456 > /sys/fs/resctrl/clos1/tasks
>> $echo 789 > /sys/fs/resctrl/clos1/tasks
>>
>> Yes, there is syscall overhead for each of the above lines. My statement was in
>> support of this work by stating that a user aiming to improve performance by
>> attempting the above in parallel would not be able to see achieve significant
>> performance gain since the calls would end up being serialized.
>
> ok. Sure. Will add the text. I may modify little bit.
>>
>> You are providing two motivations (a) "user-friendly when dealing with
>> hundreds of tasks", and (b) syscall overhead. Have you measured the
>> improvement this solution provides?
>
> No. I have not measured the performance improvement.
The changelog makes a claim that the current implementation has overhead
that is removed with this change. There is no data to support this claim.
...
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + buf[nbytes - 1] = '\0';
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> rdtgrp = rdtgroup_kn_lock_live(of->kn);
>>>>>>> if (!rdtgrp) {
>>>>>>> rdtgroup_kn_unlock(of->kn);
>>>>>>> return -ENOENT;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +next:
>>>>>>> + if (!buf || buf[0] == '\0')
>>>>>>> + goto unlock;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + pid_str = strim(strsep(&buf, ","));
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could lib/cmdline.c:get_option() be useful?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. We could that also. May not be required for the simple case like this.
>>>>
>>>> Please keep an eye out for how much of it you end up duplicating ....
>>>
>>> Using the get_options will require at least two calls(one to get the
>>> length and then read the integers). Also need to allocate the integers
>>> array dynamically. That is lot code if we are going that route.
>>>
>>
>> I did not ask about get_options(), I asked about get_option().
>
> If you insist, will use get_option. But we still have to loop thru all the
> string till get_option returns 0. I can try that.
I just asked whether get_option() could be useful. Could you please point out what
I said that made you think that I insist on this change being made? If it matches
your usage, then know it is available, if it does not, then don't use it.
...
>>> I can say "The failure pid will be logged in
>>> /sys/fs/resctrl/info/last_cmd_status file."
>>
>> That will not be accurate. Not all errors include the pid.
>
> Can you please suggest?
last_cmd_status provides a 512 char buffer to communicate details
to the user. The buffer is cleared before the loop that moves all the
tasks start. If an error is encountered, a detailed message is written
to the buffer. One option may be to append a string to the buffer that
includes the pid? Perhaps something like:
rdt_last_cmd_printf("Error encountered while moving task %d\n", pid);
Please feel free to improve.
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists