linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/19] x86/resctrl: Add cpumask_any

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <01e0704c-6d69-07ca-8a3b-c2cff498c972@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:09:58 +0100
From:   James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
        D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
        carl@...amperecomputing.com, lcherian@...vell.com,
        bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com, tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com,
        xingxin.hx@...nanolis.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
        Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>, peternewman@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/19] x86/resctrl: Add cpumask_any_housekeeping() for
 limbo/overflow

Hi Ilpo,

On 21/03/2023 15:14, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, James Morse wrote:
> 
>> The limbo and overflow code picks a CPU to use from the domain's list
>> of online CPUs. Work is then scheduled on these CPUs to maintain
>> the limbo list and any counters that may overflow.
>>
>> cpumask_any() may pick a CPU that is marked nohz_full, which will
>> either penalise the work that CPU was dedicated to, or delay the
>> processing of limbo list or counters that may overflow. Perhaps
>> indefinitely. Delaying the overflow handling will skew the bandwidth
>> values calculated by mba_sc, which expects to be called once a second.
>>
>> Add cpumask_any_housekeeping() as a replacement for cpumask_any()
>> that prefers housekeeping CPUs. This helper will still return
>> a nohz_full CPU if that is the only option. The CPU to use is
>> re-evaluated each time the limbo/overflow work runs. This ensures
>> the work will move off a nohz_full CPU once a houskeeping CPU is
> 
> housekeeping
> 
>> available.

>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> index 87545e4beb70..0b5fd5a0cda2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h

>> +/**
>> + * cpumask_any_housekeeping() - Chose any cpu in @mask, preferring those that
>> + *			        aren't marked nohz_full
>> + * @mask:	The mask to pick a CPU from.
>> + *
>> + * Returns a CPU in @mask. If there are houskeeping CPUs that don't use
>> + * nohz_full, these are preferred.
>> + */
>> +static inline unsigned int cpumask_any_housekeeping(const struct cpumask *mask)
>> +{
>> +	int cpu, hk_cpu;
>> +
>> +	cpu = cpumask_any(mask);
>> +	if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu)) {
>> +		hk_cpu = cpumask_nth_andnot(0, mask, tick_nohz_full_mask);
> 
> Why cpumask_nth_and() is not enough here? ..._andnot() seems to alter 
> tick_nohz_full_mask which doesn't seem desirable?

tick_nohz_full_mask is the list of CPUs we should avoid. This wants to find the first cpu
set in the domain mask, and clear in tick_nohz_full_mask.

Where does cpumask_nth_andnot() modify its arguments? Its arguments are const.


Thanks,

James