Re: [PATCH v20 00/18] Add support for Sub-NUMA cluster (SNC) systems

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Babu,

On 6/14/24 2:29 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> Hi Reinette,
>
> On 6/14/2024 11:46 AM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > Hi Babu,
> >
> > On 6/14/24 9:27 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> > > Hi Reinette,
> > >
> > > On 6/13/24 15:32, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > > Hi Babu,
> > > >
> > > > On 6/13/24 12:17 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> > > > > I may be little bit out of sync here. Also, sorry to come back late in the
> > > > > series.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at the series again, I see this approach adds lots of code.
> > > > > Look at this structure.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -187,10 +196,12 @@ struct rdt_resource {
> > > > >        bool            alloc_capable;
> > > > >        bool            mon_capable;
> > > > >        int            num_rmid;
> > > > > -    enum resctrl_scope    scope;
> > > > > +    enum resctrl_scope    ctrl_scope;
> > > > > +    enum resctrl_scope    mon_scope;
> > > > >        struct resctrl_cache    cache;
> > > > >        struct resctrl_membw    membw;
> > > > > -    struct list_head    domains;
> > > > > +    struct list_head    ctrl_domains;
> > > > > +    struct list_head    mon_domains;
> > > > >        char            *name;
> > > > >        int            data_width;
> > > > >        u32            default_ctrl;
> > > > >
> > > > > There are two scope fields.
> > > > > There are two domains fields.
> > > > >
> > > > > These are very confusing and very hard to maintain. Also, I am not sure if
> > > > > these fields are useful for anything other than SNC feature. This approach
> > > > > adds quite a bit of code for no specific advantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't we just split the RDT_RESOURCE_L3 resource
> > > > > into separate resources, one for control, one for monitoring.
> > > > > We already have "control" only resources (MBA, SMBA, L2). Lets create new
> > > > > "monitor" only resource. I feel it will be much cleaner approach.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony has already tried that approach and showed that it is much simpler.
> > > > >
> > > > > v15-RFC :
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240130222034.37181-1-tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Some highlights of my thoughts in response to that series, but the whole
> > > > thread
> > > > may be of interest to you:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/78c88c6d-2e8d-42d1-a6f2-1c5ac38fb258@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/59944211-d34a-4ba3-a1de-095822c0b3f0@xxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Went through the thread, in summary:
> > >
> > > The main concerns are related to duplication of code and data structures.
> > >
> > > The solutions are
> > >
> > > a) Split the domains.
> > > This is what this series is doing now. This creates members like
> > > ctrl_scope, mon_scope, ctrl_domains etc.. These fields are added to all
> > > the resources (MBA, SMBA and L2). Then there is additional domain header.
> > >
> > >
> > > b) Split the resource.
> > >    Split RDT_RESOURCE_L3 into two, one for "monitor" and one for "control".
> > >    There will be one domain structure for "monitor" and  one for "control"
> > >
> > > Both these approaches have code and data duplication. So, there is no
> > > difference that way.
> >
> > Could you please elaborate where code and data duplication of (a) is?
>
> We have ctrl_scope, mon_scope, ctrl_domains. mon_domains.  Only one
> resource, RDT_RESOURCE_L3 is going to use these fields. Rest of the
> resources don't need these fields. But these fields are part of all
> the resources.

Correct. There are two new empty fields per resource that does
not support monitoring. Having the new mon_domains list results in
the benefit of eliminating monitoring fields from all the domains
forming part of resources that do not support monitoring. Providing
more details below but the additional pointer results in a significant
net reduction of unused fields. Having the new mon_scope field results
in the benefit to support SNC.

> I am not too worried about the size of the patch.  But, I don't
> foresee these fields will be used anytime soon in these
> resources(MBA. L3. SMBA). Why add it now? In future we may have to
> cleanup all these anyways.

This work does indeed go through the effort to _eliminate_ unused fields.
Note how all domains of all resources (whether they support monitoring or
not) currently have to carry a significant number of monitoring fields.
These can be found in both struct rdt_domain (*rmid_busy_llc, *mbm_total,
*mbm_local, mbm_over, cqm_limbo, mbm_work_cpu, cqm_work_cpu)  as
well as struct rdt_hw_domain (*arch_mbm_total, *arch_mbm_local).

For a resource that does not support monitoring it is of course
unnecessary to carry all of this for _every_ domain instance and
after this series it no longer will.

Reinette