linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] sched/deadline: Check bandwidth overflow earlier for hotplug

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z4kr7xq7tysrKGoR@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:55:27 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Koutny <mkoutny@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	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>,
	Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Aashish Sharma <shraash@...gle.com>,
	Shin Kawamura <kawasin@...gle.com>,
	Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] sched/deadline: Check bandwidth overflow earlier
 for hotplug

On 16/01/25 13:14, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 15/01/2025 16:10, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 14/01/25 15:02, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > On 14/01/25 13:52, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 13/01/2025 09:32, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > > On 10/01/25 18:40, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > > With the above I see the following ...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [   53.919672] dl_bw_manage: cpu=5 cap=3072 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=209712 dl_bw_cpus=4
> > > > > > [   53.930608] dl_bw_manage: cpu=4 cap=2048 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=157284 dl_bw_cpus=3
> > > > > > [   53.941601] dl_bw_manage: cpu=3 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=104856 dl_bw_cpus=2
> > > > > 
> > > > > So far so good.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > [   53.952186] dl_bw_manage: cpu=2 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=576708 dl_bw_cpus=2
> > > > > 
> > > > > But, this above doesn't sound right.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > [   53.962938] dl_bw_manage: cpu=1 cap=0 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=576708 dl_bw_cpus=1
> > > > > > [   53.971068] Error taking CPU1 down: -16
> > > > > > [   53.974912] Non-boot CPUs are not disabled
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is the topology of your board?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are you using any cpuset configuration for partitioning CPUs?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I just noticed that by default we do boot this board with 'isolcpus=1-2'. I
> > > > see that this is a deprecated cmdline argument now and I must admit I don't
> > > > know the history of this for this specific board. It is quite old now.
> > > > 
> > > > Thierry, I am curious if you have this set for Tegra186 or not? Looks like
> > > > our BSP (r35 based) sets this by default.
> > > > 
> > > > I did try removing this and that does appear to fix it.
> > > 
> > > OK, good.
> > > 
> > > > Juri, let me know your thoughts.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the additional info. I guess I could now try to repro using
> > > isolcpus at boot on systems I have access to (to possibly understand
> > > what the underlying problem is).
> > 
> > I think the problem lies in the def_root_domain accounting of dl_servers
> > (which isolated cpus remains attached to).
> > 
> > Came up with the following, of which I'm not yet fully convinced, but
> > could you please try it out on top of the debug patch and see how it
> > does with the original failing setup using isolcpus?
> 
> 
> Thanks I added the change, but suspend is still failing with this ...

Thanks!

> [  210.595431] dl_bw_manage: cpu=5 cap=3072 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=209712 dl_bw_cpus=4
> [  210.606269] dl_bw_manage: cpu=4 cap=2048 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=157284 dl_bw_cpus=3
> [  210.617281] dl_bw_manage: cpu=3 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=104856 dl_bw_cpus=2
> [  210.627205] dl_bw_manage: cpu=2 cap=1024 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=262140 dl_bw_cpus=2
> [  210.637752] dl_bw_manage: cpu=1 cap=0 fair_server_bw=52428 total_bw=262140 dl_bw_cpus=1
                                                                          ^
Different than before but still not what I expected. Looks like there
are conditions/path I currently cannot replicate on my setup, so more
thinking. Unfortunately I will be out traveling next week, so this
might required a bit of time.

Best,
Juri