| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Z2powPXbWlZqzU6r@gpd3>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:54:40 +0100
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/topology: introduce for_each_numa_hop_node()
/ sched_numa_hop_node()
Hi Yury,
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 01:18:10PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 04:11:33PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Introduce for_each_numa_hop_node() and sched_numa_hop_node() to iterate
> > over node IDs in order of increasing NUMA distance from a given starting
> > node.
> >
> > These iterator functions are similar to for_each_numa_hop_mask() and
> > sched_numa_hop_mask(), but instead of providing a cpumask at each
> > iteration, they provide a node ID.
> >
> > Example usage:
> >
> > nodemask_t hop_nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > int start = cpu_to_node(smp_processor_id());
> >
> > for_each_numa_hop_node(node, start, hop_nodes, N_ONLINE)
> > pr_info("node (%d, %d) -> \n",
> > start, node, node_distance(start, node);
>
> This iterates nodes, not hops. The hop is a set of equidistant nodes,
> and the iterator (the first argument) should be a nodemask. I'm OK with
> that as soon as you find it practical. But then you shouldn't mention
> hops in the patch.
>
> Also, can you check that it works correctly against a configuration with
> equidistant nodes?
Ok, and yes, it should mention nodes, not hops.
>
> > Simulating the following NUMA topology in virtme-ng:
> >
> > $ numactl -H
> > available: 4 nodes (0-3)
> > node 0 cpus: 0 1
> > node 0 size: 1006 MB
> > node 0 free: 928 MB
> > node 1 cpus: 2 3
> > node 1 size: 1007 MB
> > node 1 free: 986 MB
> > node 2 cpus: 4 5
> > node 2 size: 889 MB
> > node 2 free: 862 MB
> > node 3 cpus: 6 7
> > node 3 size: 1006 MB
> > node 3 free: 983 MB
> > node distances:
> > node 0 1 2 3
> > 0: 10 51 31 41
> > 1: 51 10 21 61
> > 2: 31 21 10 11
> > 3: 41 61 11 10
> >
> > The output of the example above (on node 0) is the following:
> >
> > [ 84.953644] node (0, 0) -> 10
> > [ 84.953712] node (0, 2) -> 31
> > [ 84.953764] node (0, 3) -> 41
> > [ 84.953817] node (0, 1) -> 51
> >
> > Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/topology.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > kernel/sched/topology.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
> > index 52f5850730b3..d9014d90580d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> > @@ -248,12 +248,18 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *cpu_cpu_mask(int cpu)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > int sched_numa_find_nth_cpu(const struct cpumask *cpus, int cpu, int node);
> > extern const struct cpumask *sched_numa_hop_mask(unsigned int node, unsigned int hops);
> > -#else
> > +extern int sched_numa_hop_node(nodemask_t *hop_nodes, int start, unsigned int state);
> > +#else /* !CONFIG_NUMA */
> > static __always_inline int sched_numa_find_nth_cpu(const struct cpumask *cpus, int cpu, int node)
> > {
> > return cpumask_nth_and(cpu, cpus, cpu_online_mask);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline int sched_numa_hop_node(nodemask_t *hop_nodes, int start, unsigned int state)
> > +{
> > + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline const struct cpumask *
> > sched_numa_hop_mask(unsigned int node, unsigned int hops)
> > {
> > @@ -261,6 +267,26 @@ sched_numa_hop_mask(unsigned int node, unsigned int hops)
> > }
> > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
> >
> > +/**
> > + * for_each_numa_hop_node - iterate over NUMA nodes at increasing hop distances
> > + * from a given starting node.
> > + * @__node: the iteration variable, representing the current NUMA node.
> > + * @__start: the NUMA node to start the iteration from.
> > + * @__hop_nodes: a nodemask_t to track the visited nodes.
> > + * @__state: state of NUMA nodes to iterate.
> > + *
> > + * Requires rcu_lock to be held.
> > + *
> > + * This macro iterates over NUMA nodes in increasing distance from
> > + * @start_node.
> > + *
> > + * Yields NUMA_NO_NODE when all the nodes have been visited.
> > + */
> > +#define for_each_numa_hop_node(__node, __start, __hop_nodes, __state) \
>
> As soon as this is not the hops iterator, the proper name would be just
>
> for_each_numa_node()
>
> And because the 'numa' prefix here doesn't look like a prefix, I think
> it would be nice to comment what this 'numa' means and what's the
> difference between this and for_each_node() iterator, especially in
> terms of complexity.
How about renaming this iterator for_each_node_by_distance()?
>
> Also you don't need underscores in macro declarations unless
> absolutely necessary.
Ok.
>
> > + for (int __node = __start; \
>
> The __node declared in for() masks out the __node provided in the
> macro.
Ok will fix this.
>
> > + __node != NUMA_NO_NODE; \
> > + __node = sched_numa_hop_node(&(__hop_nodes), __start, __state))
> > +
> > /**
> > * for_each_numa_hop_mask - iterate over cpumasks of increasing NUMA distance
> > * from a given node.
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > index 9748a4c8d668..8e77c235ad9a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > @@ -2185,6 +2185,55 @@ int sched_numa_find_nth_cpu(const struct cpumask *cpus, int cpu, int node)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sched_numa_find_nth_cpu);
> >
> > +/**
> > + * sched_numa_hop_node - Find the NUMA node at the closest hop distance
> > + * from node @start.
> > + *
> > + * @hop_nodes: a pointer to a nodemask_t representing the visited nodes.
> > + * @start: the NUMA node to start the hop search from.
> > + * @state: the node state to filter nodes by.
> > + *
> > + * This function iterates over all NUMA nodes in the given state and
> > + * calculates the hop distance to the starting node. It returns the NUMA
> > + * node that is the closest in terms of hop distance
> > + * that has not already been considered (not set in @hop_nodes). If the
> > + * node is found, it is marked as considered in the @hop_nodes bitmask.
> > + *
> > + * The function checks if the node is not the start node and ensures it is
> > + * not already part of the hop_nodes set. It then computes the distance to
> > + * the start node using the node_distance() function. The closest node is
> > + * chosen based on the minimum distance.
> > + *
> > + * Returns the NUMA node ID closest in terms of hop distance from the
> > + * @start node, or NUMA_NO_NODE if no node is found (or all nodes have been
> > + * visited).
>
> for_each_node_state() returns MAX_NUMNODES when it finishes
> traversing. I think you should do the same here.
Ok.
>
> > + */
> > +int sched_numa_hop_node(nodemask_t *hop_nodes, int start, unsigned int state)
> > +{
> > + int dist, n, min_node, min_dist;
> > +
> > + if (state >= NR_NODE_STATES)
> > + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>
> -EINVAL. But, do we need to check the parameter at all?
numa_nearest_node() has the same check (returning -EINVAL), it seems sane
to do this check here as well to prevent out-of-bounds access to
node_states[state].
>
> > +
> > + min_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > + min_dist = INT_MAX;
> > +
> > + for_each_node_state(n, state) {
> > + if (n == start || node_isset(n, *hop_nodes))
> > + continue;
> > + dist = node_distance(start, n);
> > + if (dist < min_dist) {
> > + min_dist = dist;
> > + min_node = n;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> This is a version of numa_nearest_node(). The only difference is that
> you add 'hop_nodes' mask, which in fact is 'visited' nodes.
>
> I think it should be like:
>
> int numa_nearest_unvisited_node(nodemask_t *visited, int start, unsigned int state)
> {
> for_each_node_andnot(node_states[state], visited) (
> ...
> }
> }
Makes sense. I'll change this and at this point I'll move this code to
mm/mempolicy.c, close to numa_nearest_node().
Thanks!
-Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists