[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6ba3568c-c28c-1445-7c18-d7c5dee7200a@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:39:16 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...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>,
<dfustini@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 23/24] x86/resctrl: Move domain helper migration into
resctrl_offline_cpu()
Hi James,
On 7/28/2023 9:42 AM, James Morse wrote:
> When a CPU is taken offline the resctrl filesystem code needs to check
> if it was the CPU nominated to perform the periodic overflow and limbo
> work. If so, another CPU needs to be chosen to do this work.
>
> This is currently done in core.c, mixed in with the code that removes
> the CPU from the domain's mask, and potentially free()s the domain.
>
> Move the migration of the overflow and limbo helpers into the filesystem
> code, into resctrl_offline_cpu(). As resctrl_offline_cpu() runs before
> the architecture code has removed the CPU from the domain mask, the
> callers need to be told which CPU is being removed, to avoid picking
> it as the new CPU. This uses the exclude_cpu feature previously
> added.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c | 16 ----------------
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
> index 6eb9408a942a..edc0dd123317 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
> @@ -578,22 +578,6 @@ static void domain_remove_cpu(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
>
> return;
> }
> -
> - if (r == &rdt_resources_all[RDT_RESOURCE_L3].r_resctrl) {
> - if (is_mbm_enabled() && cpu == d->mbm_work_cpu) {
> - cancel_delayed_work(&d->mbm_over);
> - /*
> - * temporary: exclude_cpu=-1 as this CPU has already
> - * been removed by cpumask_clear_cpu()d
> - */
> - mbm_setup_overflow_handler(d, 0, RESCTRL_PICK_ANY_CPU);
> - }
> - if (is_llc_occupancy_enabled() && cpu == d->cqm_work_cpu &&
> - has_busy_rmid(d)) {
> - cancel_delayed_work(&d->cqm_limbo);
> - cqm_setup_limbo_handler(d, 0, RESCTRL_PICK_ANY_CPU);
> - }
> - }
> }
>
> static void clear_closid_rmid(int cpu)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> index 12a628b5d476..a256a96df487 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> @@ -3892,7 +3892,9 @@ static void clear_childcpus(struct rdtgroup *r, unsigned int cpu)
>
> void resctrl_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> + struct rdt_domain *d;
> struct rdtgroup *rdtgrp;
> + struct rdt_resource *l3 = &rdt_resources_all[RDT_RESOURCE_L3].r_resctrl;
Please always keep reverse fir order.
>
> lockdep_assert_held(&rdtgroup_mutex);
>
> @@ -3902,6 +3904,19 @@ void resctrl_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> break;
> }
> }
> +
Can there be a l3->mon_capable check here to make things clear?
> + d = get_domain_from_cpu(cpu, l3);
> + if (d) {
> + if (is_mbm_enabled() && cpu == d->mbm_work_cpu) {
> + cancel_delayed_work(&d->mbm_over);
> + mbm_setup_overflow_handler(d, 0, cpu);
> + }
> + if (is_llc_occupancy_enabled() && cpu == d->cqm_work_cpu &&
> + has_busy_rmid(d)) {
> + cancel_delayed_work(&d->cqm_limbo);
> + cqm_setup_limbo_handler(d, 0, cpu);
> + }
> + }
> }
>
> /*
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists