[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z36Gqy5eGigodc_K@li-4c4c4544-0047-5210-804b-b8c04f323634.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:08:51 -0600
From: Nick Child <nnac123@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
y@...4c4c4544-0047-5210-804b-b8c04f323634.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Haren Myneni <haren@...ux.ibm.com>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Falcon <tlfalcon@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] ibmvnic: simplify ibmvnic_set_queue_affinity()y
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 03:04:40PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:43:01PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 04:37:17PM -0600, Nick Child wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 10:49:35AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > A loop based on cpumask_next_wrap() opencodes the dedicated macro
> > > > for_each_online_cpu_wrap(). Using the macro allows to avoid setting
> > > > bits affinity mask more than once when stride >= num_online_cpus.
> > > >
> > > > This also helps to drop cpumask handling code in the caller function.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> > > > index e95ae0d39948..4cfd90fb206b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> > > > @@ -234,11 +234,16 @@ static int ibmvnic_set_queue_affinity(struct ibmvnic_sub_crq_queue *queue,
> > > > (*stragglers)--;
> > > > }
> > > > /* atomic write is safer than writing bit by bit directly */
> > > > - for (i = 0; i < stride; i++) {
> > > > - cpumask_set_cpu(*cpu, mask);
> > > > - *cpu = cpumask_next_wrap(*cpu, cpu_online_mask,
> > > > - nr_cpu_ids, false);
> > > > + for_each_online_cpu_wrap(i, *cpu) {
> > > > + if (!stride--)
> > > > + break;
> > > > + cpumask_set_cpu(i, mask);
> > > > }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* For the next queue we start from the first unused CPU in this queue */
> > > > + if (i < nr_cpu_ids)
> > > > + *cpu = i + 1;
> > > > +
> > > This should read '*cpu = i'. Since the loop breaks after incrementing i.
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > cpumask_next_wrap() makes '+ 1' for you. The for_each_cpu_wrap() starts
> > exactly where you point. So, this '+1' needs to be explicit now.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Ah, I think I see what you mean. It should be like this, right?
>
> for_each_online_cpu_wrap(i, *cpu) {
> if (!stride--) {
> *cpu = i + 1;
> break;
> }
> cpumask_set_cpu(i, mask);
> }
Not quite, for_each_online_cpu_wrap will increment i to point to the
next online cpu, then enter the body of the loop. When we break (beacuse
stride is zero), we exit the loop early before i is added to any mask, i
is the next unassigned online cpu.
I tested this to make sure, we see unused cpus (#7, #23) with the patch as is:
IRQ : 256 -> ibmvnic-30000003-tx0
/proc/irq/256/smp_affinity_list:0-6
IRQ : 257 -> ibmvnic-30000003-tx1
/proc/irq/257/smp_affinity_list:16-22
IRQ : 258 -> ibmvnic-30000003-rx0
/proc/irq/258/smp_affinity_list:8-14
IRQ : 259 -> ibmvnic-30000003-rx1
/proc/irq/259/smp_affinity_list:24-30
Powered by blists - more mailing lists