[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <238f4d32-ac26-e0c6-b53c-9f7ab98050ca@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 14:48:30 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, frederic@...nel.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jlelli@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, mike.marciniszyn@...el.com,
dennis.dalessandro@...el.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
jerinj@...vell.com, mathias.nyman@...el.com, jiri@...dia.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch v1 1/3] sched/isolation: API to get num of
hosekeeping CPUs
On 9/17/2020 1:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Ingo, Peter, Juri, Vincent (scheduler maintainers)]
>
> s/hosekeeping/housekeeping/ (in subject)
>
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:08:16AM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> Introduce a new API num_housekeeping_cpus(), that can be used to retrieve
>> the number of housekeeping CPUs by reading an atomic variable
>> __num_housekeeping_cpus. This variable is set from housekeeping_setup().
>>
>> This API is introduced for the purpose of drivers that were previously
>> relying only on num_online_cpus() to determine the number of MSIX vectors
>> to create. In an RT environment with large isolated but a fewer
>> housekeeping CPUs this was leading to a situation where an attempt to
>> move all of the vectors corresponding to isolated CPUs to housekeeping
>> CPUs was failing due to per CPU vector limit.
>
> Totally kibitzing here, but AFAICT the concepts of "isolated CPU" and
> "housekeeping CPU" are not currently exposed to drivers, and it's not
> completely clear to me that they should be.
>
> We have carefully constructed notions of possible, present, online,
> active CPUs, and it seems like whatever we do here should be
> somehow integrated with those.
>
Perhaps "active" CPUs could be separated to not include the isolated CPUs?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists