Re: [PATCH v2] sched: cpuset: Don't rebuild sched domains on suspend-resume

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 1/30/23 14:48, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 01/30/23 11:29, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 1/30/23 08:00, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>
>>          just skip the call here if the condition is right? Like
>>
>>                  /* rebuild sched domains if cpus_allowed has changed */
>>                  if (cpus_updated || (force_rebuild && !cpuhp_tasks_frozen)) {
>>                          force_rebuild = false;
>>                          rebuild_sched_domains();
>>                  }
>>
>>          Still, we will need to confirm that cpuhp_tasks_frozen will be cleared
>>          outside of the suspend/resume cycle.
>>
>>      I think it's fine to use this variable from the cpuhp callback context only.
>>      Which I think this cpuset workfn is considered an extension of.
>>
>>      But you're right, I can't use cpuhp_tasks_frozen directly in
>>      rebuild_root_domains() as I did in v1 because it doesn't get cleared after
>>      calling the last _cpu_up().
>>
>> That is what I suspect. So we can't use that cpuhp_tasks_frozen variable here
>> in cpuset.
>>
>>       force_rebuild will only be set after the last cpu
>>      is brought online though - so this should happen once at the end.
>>
>> Perhaps you can add another tracking variable for detecting if suspend/resume
>> is in progress.
> I think cpuhp_tasks_frozen is meant for that. All users who cared so far
> belonged to the cpuhp callback. I think reading it from cpuset_hotplug_workfn()
> is fine too as this function will only run as a consequence of the cpuhp
> callback AFAICS. cpuset_cpu_active() takes care of not forcing a rebuild of
> sched_domains until the last cpu becomes active - so the part of it being done
> once at the end at resume is handled too.

Well we will have to add code to clear cpuhp_tasks_frozen at the end of 
resume then. We don't want to affect other callers unless we are sure 
that it won't affect them.

>
> It's just rebuild_sched_domains() will always assume it needs to clear and
> rebuild deadline accounting - which is not true for suspend/resume case. But
> now looking at other users of rebuild_sched_domains(), others might be getting
> the hit too. For example rebuild_sched_domains_locked() is called on
> update_relax_domain_level() which AFAIU should not impact dl accounting.
>
> FWIW, I did capture a worst case scenario of 21ms because of
> rebuild_root_domains().
>
> /me thinks rebuild_root_domains() is a misleading name too as it just fixes
> dl accounting but not rebuild the rd itself.
>
> What makes sense to me now is to pass whether dl accounting requires updating
> to rebuild_sched_domains() as an arg so that the caller can decide whether the
> reason can affect dl accounting.
>
> Or maybe pull rebuild_root_domains() out of the chain and let the caller call
> it directly. And probably rename it to update_do_rd_accounting() or something.
>
> I'll continue to dig more..

Looking forward to see that.

Cheers,
Longman