mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun2@huawei.com>
To: <peterz@infradead.org>, <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
	<tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	<juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	<bsegall@google.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>, <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	<kprateek.nayak@amd.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/cache: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work by only scan the visisted cpus
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 06:42:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260618064300.80072-2-luogengkun2@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260618064300.80072-1-luogengkun2@huawei.com>

The overhead of task_cache_work() is high, especially in multi-NUMA
systems. Currently, task_cache_work() tries to find the pref_llc by
scanning all CPUs in the system. However, most of these scans are
meaningless, such as those for CPUs that have never been visited or were
accessed a long time ago.

To address this problem, introduce visited_cpus to track the visited CPUs
and evict them once they have not been accessed for a duration exceeding
llc_epoch_affinity_timeout. With this patch, get_scan_cpumasks() is no
longer need and is therefore removed.

Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun2@huawei.com>
---
 include/linux/sched.h |  2 ++
 kernel/sched/fair.c   | 81 +++++++++++++++----------------------------
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index b3204a15d512..9f3946c6bd5d 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -2385,6 +2385,7 @@ static __always_inline int task_mm_cid(struct task_struct *t)
 struct sched_cache_time {
 	u64 runtime;
 	unsigned long epoch;
+	unsigned long epoch_timeout;
 };
 
 struct sched_cache_stat {
@@ -2395,6 +2396,7 @@ struct sched_cache_stat {
 	unsigned long next_scan;
 	unsigned long footprint;
 	int cpu;
+	struct cpumask visited_cpus;
 } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
 
 #else
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index d78467ec6ee1..61f71857e9b1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1585,6 +1585,7 @@ void mm_init_sched(struct mm_struct *mm,
 		pcpu_sched->runtime = 0;
 		/* a slightly stale cpu epoch is acceptible */
 		pcpu_sched->epoch = rq->cpu_epoch;
+		pcpu_sched->epoch_timeout = rq->cpu_epoch;
 		epoch = rq->cpu_epoch;
 	}
 
@@ -1594,6 +1595,7 @@ void mm_init_sched(struct mm_struct *mm,
 	mm->sc_stat.next_scan = jiffies;
 	mm->sc_stat.nr_running_avg = 0;
 	mm->sc_stat.footprint = 0;
+	cpumask_clear(&mm->sc_stat.visited_cpus);
 	/*
 	 * The update to mm->sc_stat should not be reordered
 	 * before initialization to mm's other fields, in case
@@ -1635,11 +1637,21 @@ static inline void __update_mm_sched(struct rq *rq,
 	}
 }
 
-static unsigned long fraction_mm_sched(struct rq *rq,
-				       struct sched_cache_time *pcpu_sched)
+static unsigned long fraction_mm_sched(int cpu,
+				       struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
+	struct sched_cache_time *pcpu_sched =
+		per_cpu_ptr(mm->sc_stat.pcpu_sched, cpu);
+	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+
 	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&rq->cpu_epoch_lock);
 
+	/* Skip the rq that has not been hit for a long time */
+	if ((rq->cpu_epoch - pcpu_sched->epoch_timeout) > llc_epoch_affinity_timeout) {
+		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &mm->sc_stat.visited_cpus);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
 	__update_mm_sched(rq, pcpu_sched);
 
 	/*
@@ -1711,6 +1723,9 @@ void account_mm_sched(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, s64 delta_exec)
 		pcpu_sched->runtime += delta_exec;
 		rq->cpu_runtime += delta_exec;
 		epoch = rq->cpu_epoch;
+		pcpu_sched->epoch_timeout = epoch;
+		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu_of(rq), &mm->sc_stat.visited_cpus))
+			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu_of(rq), &mm->sc_stat.visited_cpus);
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -1761,51 +1776,6 @@ static void task_tick_cache(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
 	}
 }
 
-static void get_scan_cpumasks(cpumask_var_t cpus, struct task_struct *p)
-{
-#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
-	int cpu, curr_cpu, nid, pref_nid;
-
-	if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing))
-		goto out;
-
-	cpu = READ_ONCE(p->mm->sc_stat.cpu);
-	if (cpu != -1)
-		nid = cpu_to_node(cpu);
-	curr_cpu = task_cpu(p);
-
-	/*
-	 * Scanning in the preferred NUMA node is ideal. However, the NUMA
-	 * preferred node is per-task rather than per-process. It is possible
-	 * for different threads of the process to have distinct preferred
-	 * nodes; consequently, the process-wide preferred LLC may bounce
-	 * between different nodes. As a workaround, maintain the scan
-	 * CPU mask to also cover the process's current preferred LLC and the
-	 * current running node to mitigate the bouncing risk.
-	 * TBD: numa_group should be considered during task aggregation.
-	 */
-	pref_nid = p->numa_preferred_nid;
-	/* honor the task's preferred node */
-	if (pref_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
-		goto out;
-
-	cpumask_or(cpus, cpus, cpumask_of_node(pref_nid));
-
-	/* honor the task's preferred LLC CPU */
-	if (cpu != -1 && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpus) && nid != NUMA_NO_NODE)
-		cpumask_or(cpus, cpus, cpumask_of_node(nid));
-
-	/* make sure the task's current running node is included */
-	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(curr_cpu, cpus))
-		cpumask_or(cpus, cpus, cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(curr_cpu)));
-
-	return;
-
-out:
-#endif
-	cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_online_mask);
-}
-
 static inline void update_avg_scale(u64 *avg, u64 sample)
 {
 	int factor = per_cpu(sd_llc_size, raw_smp_processor_id());
@@ -1866,7 +1836,7 @@ static void task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
 	scoped_guard (cpus_read_lock) {
 		guard(rcu)();
 
-		get_scan_cpumasks(cpus, p);
+		cpumask_and(cpus, cpu_online_mask, &mm->sc_stat.visited_cpus);
 
 		for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
 			/* XXX sched_cluster_active */
@@ -1878,18 +1848,21 @@ static void task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
 				continue;
 
 			for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sd)) {
-				occ = fraction_mm_sched(cpu_rq(i),
-							per_cpu_ptr(mm->sc_stat.pcpu_sched, i));
+				cur = rcu_dereference_all(cpu_rq(i)->curr);
+				if (cur && !(cur->flags & (PF_EXITING | PF_KTHREAD)) &&
+				    cur->mm == mm)
+					nr_running++;
+
+				occ = fraction_mm_sched(i, mm);
+				if (occ == 0)
+					continue;
+
 				a_occ += occ;
 				if (occ > m_occ) {
 					m_occ = occ;
 					m_cpu = i;
 				}
 
-				cur = rcu_dereference_all(cpu_rq(i)->curr);
-				if (cur && !(cur->flags & (PF_EXITING | PF_KTHREAD)) &&
-				    cur->mm == mm)
-					nr_running++;
 			}
 
 			/*
-- 
2.34.1


  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-18  6:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-18  6:42 [PATCH v4 0/2] Cache aware scheduling: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work Luo Gengkun
2026-06-18  6:42 ` Luo Gengkun [this message]
2026-06-19  6:54   ` [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/cache: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work by only scan the visisted cpus K Prateek Nayak
2026-06-20  6:27     ` Chen, Yu C
2026-06-25 12:43       ` Luo Gengkun
2026-06-18  6:43 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] -- DO NOT APPLY!!! -- sched/cache/debug: Add trace event and sched feature to track scan cost Luo Gengkun

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=20260618064300.80072-2-luogengkun2@huawei.com \
    --to=luogengkun2@huawei.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=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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

Powered by JetHome