On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:05:31AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> On 8/25/2023 10:05 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:29:25AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> On 7/22/2023 12:07 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
>
> >>> Change all places where monitoring functions walk the list of
> >>> domains to use the new "mondomains" list instead of the old
> >>> "domains" list.
> >>
> >> I would not refer to it as "the old domains list" as it creates
> >> impression that this is being replaced. The changelog makes
> >> no mention that domains list will remain and be dedicated to
> >> control domains. I think this is important to include in description
> >> of this change.
> >
> > I've rewritten the entire commit message incorporating your suggestions.
> > V6 will be posted soon (after I get some time on an SNC SPR to check
> > that it all works!)
>
> I seem to have missed v5.
I simply can't count. You are correct that next version to be posted
will be v5.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/linux/resctrl.h | 10 +-
> >>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h | 2 +-
> >>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c | 195 +++++++++++++++-------
> >>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c | 2 +-
> >>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c | 2 +-
> >>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 30 ++--
> >>> 6 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/resctrl.h b/include/linux/resctrl.h
> >>> index 8334eeacfec5..1267d56f9e76 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/resctrl.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/resctrl.h
> >>> @@ -151,9 +151,11 @@ struct resctrl_schema;
> >>> * @mon_capable: Is monitor feature available on this machine
> >>> * @num_rmid: Number of RMIDs available
> >>> * @cache_level: Which cache level defines scope of this resource
> >>> + * @mon_scope: Scope of this resource if different from cache_level
> >>
> >> I think this addition should be deferred. As it is here it the "if different
> >> from cache_level" also creates many questions (when will it be different?
> >> how will it be determined that the scope is different in order to know that
> >> mon_scope should be used?)
> >
> > I've gone in a different direction. V6 renames "cache_level" to
> > "ctrl_scope". I think this makes intent clear from step #1.
> >
>
> This change is not clear to me. Previously you changed this name
> but kept using it in code specific to cache levels. It is not clear
> to me how this time's rename would be different.
The current "cache_level" field in the structure is describing
the scope of each instance using the cache level (2 or 3) as the
method to describe which CPUs are considered part of a group. Currently
the scope is the same for both control and monitor resources.
Would you like to see patches in this progrssion:
1) Rename "cache_level" to "scope". With commit comment that future
patches are going to base the scope on NUMA nodes in addtion to sharing
caches at particular levels, and will split into separate control and
monitor scope.
2) Split the "scope" field from first patch into "ctrl_scope" and
"mon_scope" (also with the addition of the new list for the mon_scope).
3) Add "node" as a new option for scope in addtion to L3 and L2 cache.
> ...
>
> >>> @@ -502,61 +593,19 @@ static int arch_domain_mbm_alloc(u32 num_rmid, struct rdt_hw_domain *hw_dom)
> >>> */
> >>> static void domain_add_cpu(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
> >>> {
> >>> - int id = get_cpu_cacheinfo_id(cpu, r->cache_level);
> >>> - struct list_head *add_pos = NULL;
> >>> - struct rdt_hw_domain *hw_dom;
> >>> - struct rdt_domain *d;
> >>> - int err;
> >>> -
> >>> - d = rdt_find_domain(r, id, &add_pos);
> >>> - if (IS_ERR(d)) {
> >>> - pr_warn("Couldn't find cache id for CPU %d\n", cpu);
> >>> - return;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>> - if (d) {
> >>> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &d->cpu_mask);
> >>> - if (r->cache.arch_has_per_cpu_cfg)
> >>> - rdt_domain_reconfigure_cdp(r);
> >>> - return;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>> - hw_dom = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*hw_dom), GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
> >>> - if (!hw_dom)
> >>> - return;
> >>> -
> >>> - d = &hw_dom->d_resctrl;
> >>> - d->id = id;
> >>> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &d->cpu_mask);
> >>> -
> >>> - rdt_domain_reconfigure_cdp(r);
> >>> -
> >>> - if (r->alloc_capable && domain_setup_ctrlval(r, d)) {
> >>> - domain_free(hw_dom);
> >>> - return;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>> - if (r->mon_capable && arch_domain_mbm_alloc(r->num_rmid, hw_dom)) {
> >>> - domain_free(hw_dom);
> >>> - return;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>> - list_add_tail(&d->list, add_pos);
> >>> -
> >>> - err = resctrl_online_domain(r, d);
> >>> - if (err) {
> >>> - list_del(&d->list);
> >>> - domain_free(hw_dom);
> >>> - }
> >>> + if (r->alloc_capable)
> >>> + domain_add_cpu_ctrl(cpu, r);
> >>> + if (r->mon_capable)
> >>> + domain_add_cpu_mon(cpu, r);
> >>> }
> >>
> >> A resource could be both alloc and mon capable ... both
> >> domain_add_cpu_ctrl() and domain_add_cpu_mon() can fail.
> >> Should domain_add_cpu_mon() still be run for a CPU if
> >> domain_add_cpu_ctrl() failed?
> >>
> >> Looking ahead the CPU should probably also not be added
> >> to the default groups mask if a failure occurred.
> >
> > Existing code doesn't do anything for the case where a CPU
> > can't be added to a domain (probably the only real error case
> > is failure to allocate memory for the domain structure).
>
> Is my statement about CPU being added to default group mask
> incorrect? Seems like a potential issue related to domain's
> CPU mask also.
>
> Please see my earlier question. Existing code does not proceed
> with monitor initialization if control initialization fails and
> undoes control initialization if monitor initialization fails.
Existing code silently continues if a domain structure cannot
be allocated to add a CPU to a domain:
503 static void domain_add_cpu(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
504 {
505 int id = get_cpu_cacheinfo_id(cpu, r->cache_level);
506 struct list_head *add_pos = NULL;
507 struct rdt_hw_domain *hw_dom;
508 struct rdt_domain *d;
509 int err;
...
523
524 hw_dom = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*hw_dom), GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
525 if (!hw_dom)
526 return;
527
>
> > May be something to tackle in a future series if anyone
> > thinks this is a serious problem and has suggestions on
> > what to do. It seems like a catastrophic problem to not
> > have some CPUs in some/all domains of some resources.
> > Maybe this should disable mounting resctrl filesystem
> > completely?
>
> It is not clear to me how this is catastrophic but I
> do not think resctrl should claim support for a resource
> on a CPU if it was not able to complete initialization
That's the status quo. See above code snippet.
-Tony
