From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-io1-f41.google.com (mail-io1-f41.google.com [209.85.166.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A209D19580F for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:53:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725979986; cv=none; b=EtjDkrozfy07QQYEvDf3mL9C3cWvW8OLjBOLA2WW7rzZKe6vUbQSWl72BT9KX2BGXxKLtA4BIH1f9FPLT+S/IPL9c7A8bADrhPvn//PsVeISq+kPjlZdtXlSVSWPofEFGnu/v4msS9dGiIWFPR1TWiwX/RBcNQI9GIDS+JLvrWA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725979986; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3OPROinPYG66BAUMLz0K2W90EqZSjrxBstxfOOMxzAo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Yo4KS+pRG6sp54yVrTo1IEdLbnqKezFiD9HeCj8nUasi1nK6a8sEHzaUtt3ePC1x+tRZMgAoMo7ow1kLYh6P+o570kle7C748MvbclOKVA4rSKhNPiTAUmjFW9z5NEPRYM31ln1KWYyLB8eRhXuaVKme2dniFeXfocj8+t6/lLM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=pfHKzftx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="pfHKzftx" Received: by mail-io1-f41.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-82cdc21b5d8so148468539f.3 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:53:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1725979984; x=1726584784; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=E5Fc70nClVNFClBK/d7N6FBEhsUoSgP+e799qj2/mYg=; b=pfHKzftxq5+KkWdeMti08Ynm9mD9AnulORPkphYudQZmHp12KHYdoENMmOmBKKgC7F dG4gQVskAG8VIbgovpWx/qOTT2BwzBrU0R3Y6FmgDy+FDp+zx2Xn+vt8iRpT4h2MMSA7 eGkZ7eSSIgLMQi/+vPp23hblkZ59UcDPxpbP8KmyyloRtwOEfO4Iia2ovrvCoA1Tehpz ycPiEjCV36CypGlNpRjmrm/Ew/A/6I3hGZN2aIoiDYXtyw44SBZxUZWbGunapDzSe6AM IQ696Jh8kB4g6MuN0p2CmGJCVMKtgBMyJy22uUHDG5Un6EpTGmkJMfzYTwOuZoYMtNHB HuuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725979984; x=1726584784; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=E5Fc70nClVNFClBK/d7N6FBEhsUoSgP+e799qj2/mYg=; b=EKSjmHJKOJxLK30gUo+JhSF5YjA2sZKlfArTPGX0zkaVYI/5uT3Akjh5qSO8mgS5R9 CqVnNOs+OQc1oUCoiGDTQDj9R0YF9VK9mowj3B/GBby8S2n8JJ8Ym+KJIJW/nmfB0olU UHrZ/8Q46btjAcf83WIpw0BT+2x6QWa7lnEE6lLs89Sz0aY4mHSHauuWbGRa4Dbij6km RyJXAPLgzRcgiy0FiDXa59KfjJ65tYHLHJb81YDCuxMqMHvRkcZZQurhGNkq+GtskVhq DhDBR3SYsns1SaOckoek4G7M+QiRtwd+goOPbBYTQqY+YiKYIAj2hsS9NAQSbmrIV4pO /J3A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVjhThTGK8GymeWz8k2zEBTCdBOdyq4s2MFXnqD0AYmt5P8SYrHuUfcdPMOvrDo6qKVIiz9T6JcgwLjGT0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxqQIskLFMohITFbrCkv4IHCNhfl0Tl8xEMCT7ESadApTewkgp2 lAR08KKQSKzvIA6w+pnxv66sv778aAfNRUuY/0hn9L2YKXku8SQgLZJaFBQSptI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHaKWfN4cqnAqZaqt8tfammQulEh3IZTlHKZSFgjb5rfigxJT43Fj1kclLEAXBReBPQ+dXhqg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:160c:b0:39b:3894:9298 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3a0521a7f5cmr146307485ab.0.1725979983722; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([96.43.243.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e9e14a558f8ab-3a058fe556fsm20400425ab.36.2024.09.10.07.53.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:53:02 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] io_uring/io-wq: respect cgroup cpusets To: Felix Moessbauer Cc: asml.silence@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, dqminh@cloudflare.com, longman@redhat.com, adriaan.schmidt@siemens.com, florian.bezdeka@siemens.com References: <20240910143320.123234-1-felix.moessbauer@siemens.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: <20240910143320.123234-1-felix.moessbauer@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/10/24 8:33 AM, Felix Moessbauer wrote: > Hi, > > this series continues the affinity cleanup work started in > io_uring/sqpoll. It has been tested against the liburing testsuite > (make runtests), whereby the read-mshot test always fails: > > Running test read-mshot.t > Buffer ring register failed -22 > test_inc 0 0 failed > Test read-mshot.t failed with ret 1 > > However, this test also fails on a non-patched linux-next @ > bc83b4d1f086. That sounds very odd... What liburing are you using? On old kernels where provided buffer rings aren't available the test should just skip, new ones it should pass. Only thing I can think of is that your liburing repo isn't current? > The test wq-aff.t succeeds if at least cpu 0,1 are in the set and > fails otherwise. This is expected, as the test wants to pin on these > cpus. I'll send a patch for liburing to skip that test in case this > pre-condition is not met. > > Regarding backporting: I would like to backport these patches to 6.1 as > well, as they affect our realtime applications. However, in-between 6.1 > and next there is a major change da64d6db3bd3 ("io_uring: One wqe per > wq"), which makes the backport tricky. While I don't think we want to > backport this change, would a dedicated backport of the two pinning > patches for the old multi-queue implementation have a chance to be accepted? Let's not backport that patch, just because it's pretty invasive. It's fine to have a separate backport patch of them for -stable, in this case we'll have one version for stable kernels new enough to have that change, and one for older versions. Thankfully not that many to care about. -- Jens Axboe