From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64C4C43460 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 10:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BEA613D0 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 10:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233468AbhEUKHv (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 06:07:51 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:3586 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233502AbhEUKHf (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 06:07:35 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14L92uAL182996; Fri, 21 May 2021 05:28:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=foFX5uG2drEyduNJ3Tgh1RU5ffaSklAThpUPDcjCejw=; b=iR3HEmecJCYALqf73H+Jxh2aRzaY2BUjJpl2PjRQE8Uqn8N3+/elO8LxravkuqUXOhNq vSV9BJJvpyRNNrTPS651w5p1JZHXPbWR8mwPZRBAt6YZJRejt30iGsDY7WBpLnOWPkIJ LBZXTsC3QRnwJZqICKxzA+MZcP2qGmOwlY0bhoiM/UIPCpmpusJGf7ClvjZ97Q5cTXX+ mTiiyp8yOgs01mzPBFgmcToPfzBmvsQGJNYdux0/PQ1GrSn5py7DJabe4jqL24pGUcQR jDHp8nUIOkF0IUvdJM5EmADwK0g1M4QeDu/+l5NYuoHjfzc7V4fhDUWOUbjnF5sfSRZX ag== Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38p9kvs3tf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 May 2021 05:28:39 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14L9EIHg005473; Fri, 21 May 2021 09:28:37 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38j5jh1q1v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 May 2021 09:28:37 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 14L9SYjU58261988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 May 2021 09:28:34 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48C44C040; Fri, 21 May 2021 09:28:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750024C04A; Fri, 21 May 2021 09:28:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 21 May 2021 09:28:31 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:58:30 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Thomas Gleixner , Valentin Schneider , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Nathan Lynch , Michael Ellerman , Scott Cheloha , Gautham R Shenoy , Geetika Moolchandani Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/topology: Allow archs to populate distance map Message-ID: <20210521092830.GF2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20210520154427.1041031-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20210520154427.1041031-2-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20210521023802.GE2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: PPkuMta7RXpOMjsA5m7WIph8DClgTN0C X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: PPkuMta7RXpOMjsA5m7WIph8DClgTN0C X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-05-21_03:2021-05-20,2021-05-21 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=978 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2105210059 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-21 10:14:10]: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:08:02AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-20 20:56:31]: > > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > > Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking at distance > > > > of each node from all other nodes. This should work for most > > > > architectures and platforms. > > > > > > > > However there are some architectures like POWER that may not expose > > > > the distance of nodes that are not yet onlined because those resources > > > > are not yet allocated to the OS instance. Such architectures have > > > > other means to provide valid distance data for the current platform. > > > > > > > > For example distance info from numactl from a fully populated 8 node > > > > system at boot may look like this. > > > > > > > > node distances: > > > > node 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > > > > 0: 10 20 40 40 40 40 40 40 > > > > 1: 20 10 40 40 40 40 40 40 > > > > 2: 40 40 10 20 40 40 40 40 > > > > 3: 40 40 20 10 40 40 40 40 > > > > 4: 40 40 40 40 10 20 40 40 > > > > 5: 40 40 40 40 20 10 40 40 > > > > 6: 40 40 40 40 40 40 10 20 > > > > 7: 40 40 40 40 40 40 20 10 > > > > > > > > However the same system when only two nodes are online at boot, then the > > > > numa topology will look like > > > > node distances: > > > > node 0 1 > > > > 0: 10 20 > > > > 1: 20 10 > > > > > > > > It may be implementation dependent on what node_distance(0,3) where > > > > node 0 is online and node 3 is offline. In POWER case, it returns > > > > LOCAL_DISTANCE(10). Here at boot the scheduler would assume that the max > > > > distance between nodes is 20. However that would not be true. > > > > > > > > When Nodes are onlined and CPUs from those nodes are hotplugged, > > > > the max node distance would be 40. > > > > > > > > To handle such scenarios, let scheduler allow architectures to populate > > > > the distance map. Architectures that like to populate the distance map > > > > can overload arch_populate_distance_map(). > > > > > > Why? Why can't your node_distance() DTRT? The arch interface is > > > nr_node_ids and node_distance(), I don't see why we need something new > > > and then replace one special use of it. > > > > > > By virtue of you being able to actually implement this new hook, you > > > supposedly can actually do node_distance() right too. > > > > Since for an offline node, arch interface code doesn't have the info. > > As far as I know/understand, in POWER, unless there is an active memory or > > CPU that's getting onlined, arch can't fetch the correct node distance. > > > > Taking the above example: node 3 is offline, then node_distance of (3,X) > > where X is anything other than 3, is not reliable. The moment node 3 is > > onlined, the node distance is reliable. > > > > This problem will not happen even on POWER if all the nodes have either > > memory or CPUs active at the time of boot. > > But then how can you implement this new hook? Going by the fact that > both nr_node_ids and distance_ref_points_depth are fixed, how many > possible __node_distance() configurations are there left? > distance_ref_point_depth is provided as a different property and is readily available at boot. The new api will use just use that. So based on the distance_ref_point_depth, we know all possible node distances for that platform. For an offline node, we don't have that specific nodes distance_lookup_table array entries. Each array would be of distance_ref_point_depth entries. Without the distance_lookup_table for an array populated, we will not be able to tell how far the node is with respect to other nodes. We can lookup the correct distance_lookup_table for a node based on memory or the CPUs attached to that node. Since in an offline node, both of them would not be around, the distance_lookup_table will have stale values. > The example provided above does not suggest there's much room for > alternatives, and hence for actual need of this new interface. > -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju