* Valentin Schneider <valentin.schnei...@arm.com> [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
> On 21/05/21 14:58, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> [2021-05-21 10:14:10]:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:08:02AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> > * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> [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.
> >
>
> Ok so from your arch you can figure out the *size* of the set of unique
> distances, but not the individual node_distance(a, b)... That's quite
> unfortunate.
Yes, thats true.
>
> I suppose one way to avoid the hook would be to write some "fake" distance
> values into your distance_lookup_table[] for offline nodes using your
> distance_ref_point_depth thing, i.e. ensure an iteration of
> node_distance(a, b) covers all distance values [1]. You can then keep patch
> 3 around, and that should roughly be it.
>
Yes, this would suffice but to me its not very clean.
static int found[distance_ref_point_depth];
for_each_node(node){
int i, nd, distance = LOCAL_DISTANCE;
goto out;
nd = node_distance(node, first_online_node)
for (i=0; i < distance_ref_point_depth; i++, distance *= 2) {
if (node_online) {
if (distance != nd)
continue;
found[i] ++;
break;
}
if (found[i])
continue;
distance_lookup_table[node][i] =
distance_lookup_table[first_online_node][i];
found[i] ++;
break;
}
}
But do note: We are setting a precedent for node distance between two nodes
to change.
>
> >> 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
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
