linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] lib/group_cpus.c: honor housekeeping config when grouping CPUs

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: <ZoJz23UJLQ0NKpH4@fedora>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:16:11 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbecker@...e.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Sridhar Balaraman <sbalaraman@...allelwireless.com>,
	"brookxu.cn" <brookxu.cn@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] lib/group_cpus.c: honor housekeeping config when
 grouping CPUs

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:43:14AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 7/1/24 09:21, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:08:32AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 09:39:59PM GMT, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > > Make group_cpus_evenly aware of isolcpus configuration and use the
> > > > > housekeeping CPU mask as base for distributing the available CPUs into
> > > > > groups.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: 11ea68f553e2 ("genirq, sched/isolation: Isolate from handling managed interrupts")
> > > > 
> > > > isolated CPUs are actually handled when figuring out irq effective mask,
> > > > so not sure how commit 11ea68f553e2 is wrong, and what is fixed in this
> > > > patch from user viewpoint?
> > > 
> > > IO queues are allocated/spread on the isolated CPUs and if there is an
> > > thread submitting IOs from an isolated CPU it will cause noise on the
> > > isolated CPUs. The question is this a use case you need/want to support?
> > 
> > I have talked RH Openshift team weeks ago and they have such usage.
> > 
> > userspace is free to run any application from isolated CPUs via 'taskset
> > -c' even though 'isolcpus=' is passed from command line.
> > 
> > Kernel can not add such new constraint on userspace.
> > 
> > > We have customers who are complaining that even with isolcpus provided
> > > they still see IO noise on the isolated CPUs.
> > 
> > That is another issue, which has been fixed by the following patch:
> > 
> > a46c27026da1 blk-mq: don't schedule block kworker on isolated CPUs
> > 
> Hmm. Just when I thought I understood the issue ...
> 
> How is this supposed to work, then, given that I/O can be initiated
> from the isolated CPUs?
> I would have accepted that we have two scheduling domains, blk-mq is
> spread across all cpus, and the blk-mq cpusets are arranged according
> to the isolcpu settings.
> Then we can initiate I/O from the isolated cpus, and the scheduler
> would 'magically' ensure that everything is only run on isolated cpus.

blk-mq issues IO either from current context or kblockd context.

> 
> But that patch would completely counteract such a setup, as during
> I/O we more often than not will invoke kblockd, which then would cause
> cross-talk on non-isolated cpus.

If IO is submitted from isolated CPU, blk-mq will issue this IO via
unbound kblockd WQ, which is guaranteed to not run on isolated CPUs.


Thanks,
Ming