Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched/nohz: Affine unpinned timers to housekeepers

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 04:04:37PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:50:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > here it's fully set - triggering the bug I'm worried about. So what am I 
> > > > > missing, what prevents CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL from crashing?
> > > > 
> > > > The boot CPU is excluded from tick_nohz_full_mask in tick_nohz_init(), which is 
> > > > called from tick_init() which is called from start_kernel() shortly after 
> > > > rcu_init():
> > > > 
> > > > 	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > > 
> > > > 	if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask)) {
> > > > 		pr_warning("NO_HZ: Clearing %d from nohz_full range for timekeeping\n", cpu);
> > > > 		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask);
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > This happens after the call to tick_nohz_init_all() that does the 
> > > > cpumask_setall() that you called out above.
> > > 
> > > Ah, indeed - I somehow missed that.
> > > 
> > > This brings up two other questions:
> > > 
> > > 1)
> > > 
> > > the 'housekeeping CPU' is essentially the boot CPU. Yet we dedicate a full mask to 
> > > it (housekeeping_mask - a variable mask to begin with) and recover the 
> > > housekeeping CPU via:
> > > 
> > > +       return cpumask_any_and(housekeeping_mask, cpu_online_mask);
> > > 
> > > which can be pretty expensive, and which gets executed in two hotpaths:
> > > 
> > > kernel/time/hrtimer.c:  return &per_cpu(hrtimer_bases, get_nohz_timer_target());
> > > kernel/time/timer.c:    return per_cpu_ptr(&tvec_bases, get_nohz_timer_target());
> > > 
> > > ... why not just use a single housekeeping_cpu which would be way faster to pass 
> > > down to the timer code?
> > 
> > The housekeeping_cpu came later, but that does seem like a good optimization.
> 
> Well nohz full is likely to be used for HPC and that can involve big machines.
> Having the housekeeping duty spread per node is a likely future evolution there,
> if it isn't already used that way.
> 
> So we need to keep it a cpumask.

Fair point!

							Thanx, Paul

> > > 2)
> > > 
> > > What happens if the boot CPU is offlined? (under CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HOTPLUG_CPU0=y)
> > > 
> > > I don't see CPU hotplug callbacks fixing up the housekeeping_mask if the boot CPU 
> > > is offlined.
> > 
> > The tick_nohz_cpu_down_callback() function does this, though in a less
> > than obvious way.  The tick_do_timer_cpu variable is the housekeeping
> > CPU that is currently handling timing, and it is not permitted to go
> > offline.
> 
> Indeed, more specifically tick-common.c makes sure to set the timekeeping
> duty to a housekeeper and that housekeeper is always the boot CPU due to
> early device initialization.
> 
> But I should find a way to simplify that code and make it obvious it's always
> set to the boot CPU.
> 

--
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/