linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Move task_mm_cid_work to mm delayed work
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:33:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbc0a3c5-2ae5-439e-ae5d-7fb68ea49aec@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <481a7b7716cf4eb2d592b08558d297d343d9aa25.camel@redhat.com>

On 2024-12-09 08:45, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> 
>> Thinking back on this, you'll want a program that does the following
>> on a system with N CPUs:
>>
>> - Phase 1: run one thread per cpu, pinned on each cpu. Print the
>>     mm_cid from each thread with the cpu number every second or so.
>>
>> - Exit all threads except the main thread, join them from the main
>>     thread,
>>
>> - Phase 2: the program is now single-threaded. We'd expect the
>>     mm_cid value to converge towards 0 as the periodic task clears
>>     unused CIDs.
>>
>> So I think in phase 2 we can have an actual automated test: If after
>> an order of magnitude more time than the 100ms delay between periodic
>> tasks we still observe mm_cid > 0 in phase 2, then something is
>> wrong.
> 
> Been thinking about this and came up with a simple draft, I'll probably
> send it as a separate patch.
> 
> Doing this can lead to false positives: the main thread may be assigned
> the mm_cid 0 and keep it till the end, in this scenario the other
> threads (CPUs) would get different mm_cids and exit, the main thread
> will still have 0 and pass the test regardless.
> 
> I have an idea to make it a bit more robust: we can run threads as you
> described in phase 1, stop all but one (let's say the one running on
> the last core), make sure the main thread doesn't accidentally run on
> the same core by pinning to core 0 and wait until we see the 2
> remaining threads holding 0 and 1, in any order.
> Besides a special case if we have only 1 available core, this should
> work fine, sure we could get false positives but it seems to me much
> less likely.
> 
> Does it make sense to you?

A small tweak on your proposed approach: in phase 1, get each thread
to publish which mm_cid they observe, and select one thread which
has observed mm_cid > 1 (possibly the largest mm_cid) as the thread
that will keep running in phase 2 (in addition to the main thread).

All threads other than the main thread and that selected thread exit
and are joined before phase 2.

So you end up in phase 2 with:

- main (observed any mm_cid)
- selected thread (observed mm_cid > 1, possibly largest)

Then after a while, the selected thread should observe a
mm_cid <= 1.

This test should be skipped if there are less than 3 CPUs in
allowed cpumask (sched_getaffinity).

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com



  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-09 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-05  8:31 Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-05 14:33 ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-05 16:25   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-06  8:53     ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-06 14:06       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-09  8:04         ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-09 13:45         ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-09 15:33           ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2024-12-09 15:48             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-11 12:27               ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-11 17:07                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-12 11:09                   ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-12 14:06                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=cbc0a3c5-2ae5-439e-ae5d-7fb68ea49aec@efficios.com \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=gmonaco@redhat.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox