Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Laurent Dufour <lduf...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> Le 28/07/2020 à 19:37, Nathan Lynch a écrit :
>>> The drmem lmb list can have hundreds of thousands of entries, and
>>> unfortunately lookups take the form of linear searches. As long as
>>> this is the case, traversals have the potential to monopolize the CPU
>>> and provoke lockup reports, workqueue stalls, and the like unless
>>> they explicitly yield.
>>>
>>> Rather than placing cond_resched() calls within various
>>> for_each_drmem_lmb() loop blocks in the code, put it in the iteration
>>> expression of the loop macro itself so users can't omit it.
>>
>> Is that not too much to call cond_resched() on every LMB?
>>
>> Could that be less frequent, every 10, or 100, I don't really know ?
>
> Everything done within for_each_drmem_lmb is relatively heavyweight
> already. E.g. calling dlpar_remove_lmb()/dlpar_add_lmb() can take dozens
> of milliseconds. I don't think cond_resched() is an expensive check in
> this context.
Hmm, mostly.
But there are quite a few cases like drmem_update_dt_v1():
for_each_drmem_lmb(lmb) {
dr_cell->base_addr = cpu_to_be64(lmb->base_addr);
dr_cell->drc_index = cpu_to_be32(lmb->drc_index);
dr_cell->aa_index = cpu_to_be32(lmb->aa_index);
dr_cell->flags = cpu_to_be32(drmem_lmb_flags(lmb));
dr_cell++;
}
Which will compile to a pretty tight loop at the moment.
Or drmem_update_dt_v2() which has two loops over all lmbs.
And although the actual TIF check is cheap the function call to do it is
not free.
So I worry this is going to make some of those long loops take even longer.
At the same time I don't see an easy way to batch the calls to
cond_resched() without more intrusive changes.
cheers
