Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: assign vectors from numa_node

[Arthur Kepner]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:55:12AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Arthur Kepner wrote:
> > 
> > Several drivers (e.g., mlx4_core) do something similar to:
> > 
> > 	err = pci_enable_msix(pdev, entries, num_possible_cpus());
> 
> Which is the main problem and this patch just addresses the
> symptoms. As Eric pointed out earlier, this needs to be solved
> differently.
> 
> There is absolutely no point assigning 4096 interrupts to a single
> node in the first place. 

I'm not arguing that it's a good idea for a driver to request so 
many resources. But some do. And what we do now is even worse than 
assigning all the interrupts to a single node.

> Especially not, if we end up using only a few
> of them in the end. And those you use are not necessarily on that very
> node.

OK. Eric mentioned in a related thread that vector allocation 
might be deferred until request_irq(). That sounds like a good 
idea. But unless we change the way initial vector assignment is 
done, it just defers the problem (assuming that request_irq() 
is done for every irq allocated in create_irq_nr()).

Using the numa_node of the device to do the initial vector 
assignment seems like a reasonable default choice, no? 

> 
> I understand, that you want to work around your problem at hand, but
> I'm pushing back on it, as it's a crappy solution which just ignores
> the underlying problem. You don't even mention it in your changelog
> that this is a work around and not a solution.
> 
> No, you just ignore that fact and the requests to look at the
> underlying problem.
> 
> > which takes us down this code path:
> > 
> > 	pci_enable_msix
> > 	native_setup_msi_irqs
> > 	create_irq_nr
> > 	__assign_irq_vector
> > 
> > __assign_irq_vector() preferentially uses vectors from low-numbered 
> > CPUs. On a system with a large number (>256) CPUs this can result in 
> > a CPU running out of vectors, and subsequent attempts to assign an 
> > interrupt to that CPU will fail.
> 
> I agree, that __assign_irq_vector() should honour the request for a
> node, but I don't agree, that we should magically spread stuff on
> whatever node we find, when the node ran out of vectors.
> 
> There is probably a reason, why you want an interrupt on a specific
> node and just silently pushing it somewhere else feels very wrong.
> 
> This needs to be solved from ground up with proper rules about failure
> modes and fallback decisions.
> 
> > +static int
> > +__assign_irq_vector_node(int irq, struct irq_cfg *cfg,
> > +			 const struct cpumask *mask, int node)
> > +{
> > +	int err = -EAGAIN;
> > +	int cpu, best_cpu = -1, min_vector_count = NR_VECTORS;
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), mask) {
> > +		/* find the 'best' CPU to take this vector -
> > +		 * the one with the fewest assigned vectors is
> > +		 * considered 'best' */
> > +		int i, vector_count = 0;
> > +
> > +		if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		for (i = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + VECTOR_OFFSET_START;
> > +		     i < NR_VECTORS ; i++)
> > +			if (per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[i] != -1)
> > +				vector_count++;
> 
> Instead of having proper book keeping of vectors, we loop through nvec
> * ncpus to figure that out ? And of course we run that loop with
> interrupts disabled and vector lock held.
> 
> > +		if (vector_count < min_vector_count) {
> > +			min_vector_count = vector_count;
> > +			best_cpu = cpu;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (best_cpu >= 0) {
> > +		cpumask_var_t tmp_mask;
> > +
> > +		if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_mask, GFP_ATOMIC))
> 
> Bah. I made create_irq_nr() atomic region small with lots of effort
> and got rid of all GFP_ATOMIC allocations.
> 
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +		cpumask_clear(tmp_mask);
> > +		cpumask_set_cpu(best_cpu, tmp_mask);
> > +		err = __assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, tmp_mask);
> > +
> > +		free_cpumask_var(tmp_mask);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> > +
> >  int assign_irq_vector(int irq, struct irq_cfg *cfg, const struct cpumask *mask)
> >  {
> >  	int err;
> > @@ -1128,6 +1171,39 @@ int assign_irq_vector(int irq, struct irq_cfg *cfg, const struct cpumask *mask)
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int
> > +assign_irq_vector_node(int irq, struct irq_cfg *cfg,
> > +		       const struct cpumask *mask, int node)
> > +{
> > +	int err;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > +		return assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, mask);
> > +
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&vector_lock, flags);
> > +	err = __assign_irq_vector_node(irq, cfg, mask, node);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	if (err != 0)
> > +		/* uh oh - try again w/o specifying a node */
> > +		return assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, mask);
> > +	else {
> > +		/* and set the affinity mask so that only
> > +		 * CPUs on 'node' will be used */
> > +		struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> > +		unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
> > +		cpumask_and(desc->irq_data.affinity, cpu_online_mask,
> > +			    cpumask_of_node(node));
> 
> Which leaves us with an empty affinity mask, when the last cpu of that
> node just went offline before locking desc->lock. Brilliant.
> 
> > +		desc->status |= IRQ_AFFINITY_SET;
> > +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
> 
> Aside of that low level arch code is not supposed to fiddle in
> irq_desc at will excatly for such reasons. 
> 
> As you might have noticed, i'm working on removing access to irq_desc
> from random places and I spent quite some effort to clean up the whole
> irq mess. No way to put crap like this in again, so I can twist my
> brain around it next week how to clean it up.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

-- 
Arthur
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/