mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jianyong Wu <wujianyong@hygon.cn>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
	sshegde@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	yu.c.chen@intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
	justin.he@arm.com, zhongyuan@hygon.cn, yingzhiwei@hygon.cn,
	huangsj@hygon.cn
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] sched: Extend cache-aware scheduling into topology-aware scheduling
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:42:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260625084227.GS42921@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260625030759.25928-1-wujianyong@hygon.cn>

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:07:51AM +0800, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> The current cache-aware scheduling implementation adopts an
> LLC-centric task aggregation model. While effective for workloads
> that fit within a single LLC domain, this design is fundamentally
> limited by a fixed aggregation scope that cannot scale across
> scheduling domains.
> 
> This leads to a single structural limitation: the lack of
> topology-scalable task aggregation. When workload size exceeds
> the capacity of an LLC domain, the scheduler cannot extend
> aggregation to higher-level domains, and locality cannot be
> preserved effectively. At the same time, higher-level topology
> information such as NUMA domains cannot be consistently utilized
> for placement decisions.
> 
> This patch set addresses this limitation by extending
> cache-aware scheduling into topology-aware task aggregation.
> The aggregation scope becomes hierarchical and can dynamically
> expand or contract across scheduling domains based on workload
> demand.
> 
> Task aggregation starts at MC or LLC domains under light load,
> and expands to NUMA and higher-level domains as load increases,
> and contracts when load decreases.

Urgh,... that only really works if the topology has a low branching
factor.

I would much rather see things move towards a mask of cache domains,
rather than any single one, where the number of bits in the mask is
minimal vs the concurrency.

This has already been mentioned a number of times, which seems to
suggest you've not actually been reading along very well :-(

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-06-25  8:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-25  3:07 Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] sched/topo: Add some llc related helpers Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] sched/fair: Introduce helpers for cross-domain migration decisions Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] sched/fair: Introduce rq affinity gain calculation for migration selection Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] sched/fair: Pick optimal src rq/group using affinity promotion metric Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] sched/fair: Drop prefer_sibling restriction for llc_balance Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] sched/fair: Judge migration eligibility via NUMA-wide Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] sched: Let sched cache take precedence over NUMA balancing Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] sched/debug: Print task preferred LLC for scheduler debugging Jianyong Wu
2026-06-28 19:29   ` XIAO WU
2026-06-30  2:03     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25  8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-06-25 12:12   ` [RFC PATCH 0/8] sched: Extend cache-aware scheduling into topology-aware scheduling Jianyong Wu

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=20260625084227.GS42921@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=huangsj@hygon.cn \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=justin.he@arm.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wujianyong@hygon.cn \
    --cc=yingzhiwei@hygon.cn \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=zhongyuan@hygon.cn \
    /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®