On 9/22/20 6:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:16:51PM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 9/21/20 7:40 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:08:16AM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * num_housekeeping_cpus() - Read the number of housekeeping CPUs.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * This function returns the number of available housekeeping CPUs
>>>> + * based on __num_housekeeping_cpus which is of type atomic_t
>>>> + * and is initialized at the time of the housekeeping setup.
>>>> + */
>>>> +unsigned int num_housekeeping_cpus(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned int cpus;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&housekeeping_overridden)) {
>>>> + cpus = atomic_read(&__num_housekeeping_cpus);
>>>> + /* We should always have at least one housekeeping CPU */
>>>> + BUG_ON(!cpus);
>>>> + return cpus;
>>>> + }
>>>> + return num_online_cpus();
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(num_housekeeping_cpus);
>>>> +
>>>> int housekeeping_any_cpu(enum hk_flags flags)
>>>> {
>>>> int cpu;
>>>> @@ -131,6 +153,7 @@ static int __init housekeeping_setup(char *str, enum hk_flags flags)
>>>>
>>>> housekeeping_flags |= flags;
>>>>
>>>> + atomic_set(&__num_housekeeping_cpus, cpumask_weight(housekeeping_mask));
>>> So the problem here is that it takes the whole cpumask weight but you're only
>>> interested in the housekeepers who take the managed irq duties I guess
>>> (HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ ?).
>> IMHO we should also consider the cases where we only have nohz_full.
>> Otherwise, we may run into the same situation on those setups, do you agree?
> I guess it's up to the user to gather the tick and managed irq housekeeping
> together?
TBH I don't have a very strong case here at the moment.
But still, IMHO, this will force the user to have both managed irqs and
nohz_full in their environments to avoid these kinds of issues. Is that how
we would like to proceed?
The reason why I want to get this clarity is that going forward for any RT
related work I can form my thoughts based on this discussion.
>
> Of course that makes the implementation more complicated. But if this is
> called only on drivers initialization for now, this could be just a function
> that does:
>
> cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask | housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ))
Ack, this makes more sense.
>
> And then can we rename it to housekeeping_num_online()?
It could be just me, but does something like hk_num_online_cpus() makes more
sense here?
>
> Thanks.
>
>>>> free_bootmem_cpumask_var(non_housekeeping_mask);
>>>>
>>>> return 1;
>>>> --
>>>> 2.27.0
>>>>
>> --
>> Thanks
>> Nitesh
>>
>
>
--
Thanks
Nitesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
