On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 10:06:44AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 04/08/2015 09:28 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 03:45:55PM -0400, cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>This change allows some cores to be excluded from running the
> >>smp_hotplug_thread tasks. The motivating example for this is
> >>the watchdog threads, which by default we don't want to run
> >>on any enabled nohz_full cores.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >> include/linux/smpboot.h | 2 ++
> >> kernel/smpboot.c | 11 ++++++++---
> >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/include/linux/smpboot.h b/include/linux/smpboot.h
> >>index d600afb21926..de2f64a98108 100644
> >>--- a/include/linux/smpboot.h
> >>+++ b/include/linux/smpboot.h
> >>@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ struct smpboot_thread_data;
> >> * @pre_unpark: Optional unpark function, called before the thread is
> >> * unparked (cpu online). This is not guaranteed to be
> >> * called on the target cpu of the thread. Careful!
> >>+ * @exclude_mask: Optional cpumask, specifying cores to exclude.
> >> * @selfparking: Thread is not parked by the park function.
> >> * @thread_comm: The base name of the thread
> >> */
> >>@@ -41,6 +42,7 @@ struct smp_hotplug_thread {
> >> void (*park)(unsigned int cpu);
> >> void (*unpark)(unsigned int cpu);
> >> void (*pre_unpark)(unsigned int cpu);
> >>+ cpumask_t *exclude_mask;
> >The usual pattern for cpumasks is to use them as affinity values instead
> >of non-affinity values.
>
> Yes. The issue here is that as cpus come and go from the hotplug set,
> the ones that we want to exclude remain fixed. If we do it the way you
> propose (and it's the way I originally did it), it means that if a new cpu
> comes online you automatically treat it as nohz_full, which seems wrong
> to me. I suppose we could add another callback so that the
> smp_hotplug_thread struct could explicitly decide how to mark any
> new cpu that comes online, but that all seems more complicated than
> my final suggestion.
>
> What do you think?
No cpumasks are allocated to handle any cpu from the cpu_possible_mask.
So imagine that CPU 1 is offline and CPU 0 is online. It's perfectly
fine to write 0x3 to the cpumask, which means it's affine to both, then
if CPU 1 is turned online later, the smpboot subsystem takes care of it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
