From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>, tglx@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/mmcid: Fix affinity-triggered switch back to per-task mode
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 12:10:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10d3d3bc-ef34-4b48-8dff-f544266181a9@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260915155953.2856524-1-sh_def@163.com>
On 2026-09-15 11:59, Hui Su wrote:
> MM CID switches to per-CPU ownership when the number of users of an
> mm exceeds the maximum number of CIDs. When the affinity union grows,
> the per-CPU threshold is recalculated and the MM can switch back to
> per-task ownership through deferred work.
>
> mm_cid_calc_pcpu_thrs() incorrectly uses
> min(nr_cpus_allowed, users) to calculate that switch-back threshold.
> This makes pcpu_thrs no larger than users, so the
> users < pcpu_thrs check in mm_update_cpus_allowed() can never succeed.
>
> For example, with three users restricted to two CPUs, the MM enters
> per-CPU mode. On an eight-CPU system, widening the affinity union to
> all eight CPUs should produce a threshold of four, but the old
> calculation produces three and returns early. The MM therefore remains
> in per-CPU mode even though the widened CPU set makes per-task
> ownership preferable.
>
> Calculate pcpu_thrs from nr_cpus_allowed directly. The users bound in
> __mm_update_max_cids() still controls when per-CPU mode is entered, so
> this does not change the threshold calculated when switching from
> per-task to per-CPU ownership.
>
> Tested with an x86_64 QEMU reproducer using three users, an initial
> two-CPU affinity, and an eight-CPU affinity expansion. The baseline
> did not invoke mm_cid_work_fn() after the affinity expansion. The
> fixed kernel invoked the deferred work once and completed the switch
> back to per-task mode.
I think you're onto something.
We should cover those scenarios with selftests in
tools/testing/selftests/rseq/.
Thomas, I recall you had tests for those state transitions when
rewriting rseq mm_cid. Were those local or did they make it upstream ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Fixes: fbd0e71dc370 ("sched/mmcid: Provide CID ownership mode fixup functions")
> Signed-off-by: Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 7885ff76e69f..0280ed132d0a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -10845,11 +10845,10 @@ static void __mm_update_max_cids(struct mm_mm_cid *mc)
>
> static inline unsigned int mm_cid_calc_pcpu_thrs(struct mm_mm_cid *mc)
> {
> - unsigned int opt_cids;
> + unsigned int nr_cpus = mc->nr_cpus_allowed;
>
> - opt_cids = min(mc->nr_cpus_allowed, mc->users);
> /* Has to be at least 1 because 0 indicates PCPU mode off */
> - return max(min(opt_cids - opt_cids / 4, num_possible_cpus() / 2), 1);
> + return max(min(nr_cpus - nr_cpus / 4, num_possible_cpus() / 2), 1);
> }
>
> static bool mm_update_max_cids(struct mm_struct *mm)
>
> base-commit: 587858367581b9c55c3690f4e63382ad622719d4
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-15 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-15 15:59 Hui Su
2026-09-15 16:10 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2026-09-23 13:41 ` Hui Su
2026-10-20 8:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-10-20 13:37 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Hui Su
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=10d3d3bc-ef34-4b48-8dff-f544266181a9@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjeanson@efficios.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sh_def@163.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®