Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V2 45/45] xen/sched: add scheduling granularity enum

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 06.05.19 at 11:23, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/05/2019 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 06.05.19 at 08:56, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>  void scheduler_percpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
>>>  {
>>>      struct scheduler *sched = per_cpu(scheduler, cpu);
>>>      struct sched_resource *sd = per_cpu(sched_res, cpu);
>>> +    const cpumask_t *mask;
>>> +    unsigned int master_cpu;
>>> +    spinlock_t *lock;
>>> +    struct sched_item *old_item, *master_item;
>>> +
>>> +    if ( system_state == SYS_STATE_resume )
>>> +        return;
>>> +
>>> +    switch ( opt_sched_granularity )
>>> +    {
>>> +    case SCHED_GRAN_cpu:
>>> +        mask = cpumask_of(cpu);
>>> +        break;
>>> +    case SCHED_GRAN_core:
>>> +        mask = per_cpu(cpu_sibling_mask, cpu);
>>> +        break;
>>> +    case SCHED_GRAN_socket:
>>> +        mask = per_cpu(cpu_core_mask, cpu);
>>> +        break;
>>> +    default:
>>> +        ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
>>> +        return;
>>> +    }
>>>  
>>> -    if ( system_state != SYS_STATE_resume )
>>> +    if ( cpu == 0 || cpumask_weight(mask) == 1 )
>> 
>> At least outside of x86 specific code I think we should avoid
>> introducing (further?) assumptions that seeing CPU 0 on a
>> CPU initialization path implies this being while booting the
>> system. I wonder anyway whether the right side of the ||
>> doesn't render the left side redundant.
> 
> On the boot cpu this function is called before e.g. cpu_sibling_mask
> is initialized. I can have a try using:
> 
> if ( cpumask_weight(mask) <= 1 )

Or re-order things such that it gets set in time?

>>> +static unsigned int __init sched_check_granularity(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    unsigned int cpu;
>>> +    unsigned int siblings, gran = 0;
>>> +
>>> +    for_each_online_cpu( cpu )
>> 
>> You want to decide for one of two possible styles, but not a mixture
>> of both:
>> 
>>     for_each_online_cpu ( cpu )
>> 
>> or
>> 
>>     for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> 
> Sorry, will correct.
> 
>> 
>> . Yet then I'm a little puzzled by its use here in the first place.
>> Generally I think for_each_cpu() uses in __init functions are
>> problematic, as they then require further code elsewhere to
>> deal with hot-onlining. A pre-SMP-initcall plus use of CPU
>> notifiers is typically more appropriate.
> 
> And that was mentioned in the cover letter: cpu hotplug is not yet
> handled (hence the RFC status of the series).
> 
> When cpu hotplug is being added it might be appropriate to switch the
> scheme as you suggested. Right now the current solution is much more
> simple.

I see (I did notice the cover letter remark, but managed to not
honor it when writing the reply), but I'm unconvinced if incurring
more code churn by not dealing with things the "dynamic" way
right away is indeed the "more simple" (overall) solution.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel