From: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun2@huawei.com>
To: <peterz@infradead.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
<tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
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 v5 1/2] sched/cache: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work by only scan the visisted cpus
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 13:00:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260709130053.2749834-2-luogengkun2@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260709130053.2749834-1-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.
Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun2@huawei.com>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 2 ++
kernel/sched/fair.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 373bcc0598d1..b187ec927146 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -2388,6 +2388,7 @@ 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 {
@@ -2398,6 +2399,7 @@ 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..44552168fcc3 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);
}
/*
@@ -1867,6 +1882,7 @@ static void task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
guard(rcu)();
get_scan_cpumasks(cpus, p);
+ cpumask_and(cpus, cpus, &mm->sc_stat.visited_cpus);
for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
/* XXX sched_cluster_active */
@@ -1877,19 +1893,22 @@ static void task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
if (!sd)
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));
+ for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd), cpus) {
+ 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-09 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-09 13:00 [PATCH v5 linux 0/2] Cache aware scheduling: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work Luo Gengkun
2026-07-09 13:00 ` Luo Gengkun [this message]
2026-07-09 15:01 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/cache: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work by only scan the visisted cpus Chen, Yu C
2026-07-14 2:22 ` Luo Gengkun
2026-07-14 22:40 ` Tim Chen
2026-07-15 6:41 ` Luo Gengkun
2026-07-15 20:44 ` Tim Chen
2026-07-09 13:00 ` [PATCH v5 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=20260709130053.2749834-2-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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®