On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:23:29 -0400 Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Alex Belits <abelits@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
> isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
> it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
> these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
> overhead.
>
> Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
> available housekeeping CPUs.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/lib/cpumask.c
> +++ b/lib/cpumask.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/memblock.h>
> #include <linux/numa.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
>
> /**
> * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask
> @@ -205,22 +206,27 @@ void __init free_bootmem_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t mask)
> */
> unsigned int cpumask_local_spread(unsigned int i, int node)
> {
> - int cpu;
> + int cpu, hk_flags;
> + const struct cpumask *mask;
>
> + hk_flags = HK_FLAG_DOMAIN | HK_FLAG_WQ;
> + mask = housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);
> /* Wrap: we always want a cpu. */
> - i %= num_online_cpus();
> + i %= cpumask_weight(mask);
>
> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask)
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> if (i-- == 0)
> return cpu;
> + }
> } else {
> /* NUMA first. */
> - for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask)
> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), mask) {
> if (i-- == 0)
> return cpu;
> + }
>
> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> /* Skip NUMA nodes, done above. */
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node)))
> continue;
Are you aware of these changes to cpu_local_spread()?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1582768688-2314-1-git-send-email-zhangshaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
I don't see a lot of overlap but it would be nice for you folks to
check each other's homework ;)
