Re: [PATCH v8 4/6] cpuset: Make generate_sched_domains() recognize isolated_cpus

[Juri Lelli]

On 29/05/18 08:40, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/29/2018 02:27 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 28/05/18 21:24, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 05/28/2018 09:12 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>> On 05/24/2018 06:28 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >>>> On 17/05/18 16:55, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>> @@ -849,7 +860,12 @@ static void rebuild_sched_domains_locked(void)
> >>>>>  	 * passing doms with offlined cpu to partition_sched_domains().
> >>>>>  	 * Anyways, hotplug work item will rebuild sched domains.
> >>>>>  	 */
> >>>>> -	if (!cpumask_equal(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, cpu_active_mask))
> >>>>> +	if (!top_cpuset.isolation_count &&
> >>>>> +	    !cpumask_equal(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, cpu_active_mask))
> >>>>> +		goto out;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	if (top_cpuset.isolation_count &&
> >>>>> +	   !cpumask_subset(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, cpu_active_mask))
> >>>>>  		goto out;
> >>>> Do we cover the case in which hotplug removed one of the isolated cpus
> >>>> from cpu_active_mask?
> >>> Yes, you are right. That is the remnant of my original patch that allows
> >>> only one isolated_cpus at root. Thanks for spotting that.
> >> I am sorry. I would like to take it back my previous comment. The code
> >> above looks for inconsistency in the state of the effective_cpus mask to
> >> find out if it is racing with a hotplug event. If it is, we can skip the
> >> domain generation as the hotplug event will do that too. The checks are
> >> still valid with the current patchset. So I don't think we need to make
> >> any change here.
> > Yes, these checks are valid, but don't we also need to check for hotplug
> > races w.r.t. isolated CPUs (of some other sub domain)?
> 
> It is not actually a race. Both the hotplug event and any changes to cpu
> lists or flags are serialized by the cpuset_mutex. It is just that we
> may be doing the same work twice that we are wasting cpu cycles. So we
> are doing a quick check to avoid this. The check isn't exhaustive and we
> can certainly miss some cases. Doing a more throughout check may need as
> much time as doing the sched domain generation itself and so you are
> actually wasting more CPU cycles on average as the chance of a hotplug
> event is very low.

Fair enough.

Thanks,

- Juri