From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Li kunyu <likunyu@open-hieco.net>
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,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Li Wang (Hieco)" <li.wang@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Add task burst threshold for large-scale bursts
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2026 14:54:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261021125419.GK2823843@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261020083746.37068-6-likunyu@open-hieco.net>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 04:37:45PM +0800, Li kunyu wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> + /*
> + * In practice, bursty tasks can lead to uneven task distribution.
> + * For example, some CPUs may have kernel-mode utilization above 50%,
> + * while more than 10% of CPUs in the system remain idle.
> + * Therefore, we define a task burst threshold:
> + *
> + * 1. For a task to be woken up, the scheduler first follows the
> + * original wake-up logic (such as wake-up on the current CPU or
> + * affinity wake-up) to return a CPU. If no CPU is returned, it
> + * then checks the task burst threshold of new_cpu.
> + * 2. Newly created child processes or threads have fewer
> + * considerations; only the task burst threshold needs to be checked.
> + */
> + if (sched_feat(SMT_BUDDY_ASSIST) && cpu_rq(new_cpu)->nr_running >=
> + sysctl_smt_buddy_balance_task)
> + for_each_cpu_wrap(nohz_idle_cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask, new_cpu + 1) {
> + if (!idle_cpu(nohz_idle_cpu))
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * In general-purpose scenarios, the CPU can
> + * typically meet task requirements.
> + */
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(nohz_idle_cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * Simply returning nohz_idle_cpu is sufficient, since the
> + * subsequent NOHZ kick will clear the corresponding bit in
> + * nohz.idle_cpus_mask.
> + */
> + return nohz_idle_cpu;
> + }
> +#endif
I don't understand why this depends on NO_HZ. I also don't understand
why this only considers idle CPUs.
Also, static thresholds are horrible.
Someone that burst wakes a ton of tasks, even on a non-idle system, will
cause an uneven task distribution. Irrespective of there being idle CPUs
in the system or NOHZ whatever.
So how about we track an average rq-depth in the periodic load-balance
pass, in say the root domain or so. And then, when the the local
rq-depth reaches some multiple (3 sounds like a good number?) of that,
we'll fall back and do something utterly dumb like:
cpu = cpumask_any_distribute(p->cpus_ptr);
Eg, simply start rotating new tasks around the system *and* reset the
periodic load balance period.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-21 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-20 8:37 [RFC PATCH 0/6] sched/fair: Introduce the SMT_BUDDY_ASSIST feature Li kunyu
2026-10-20 8:37 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] sched/fair: Add SMT sibling push in periodic load balance Li kunyu
2026-10-21 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-20 8:37 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] sched/fair: Add is_smt_buddy_run() to skip SMT domain Li kunyu
2026-10-21 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-20 8:37 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] sched/fair: SMT sibling exclusion after successful push Li kunyu
2026-10-21 12:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-20 8:37 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Restrict newidle balance to LLC domain Li kunyu
2026-10-21 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-20 8:37 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Add task burst threshold for large-scale bursts Li kunyu
2026-10-21 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-10-20 8:37 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] sched/docs: Add documentation for SMT Buddy Assist feature Li kunyu
2026-10-21 12:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-21 12:44 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] sched/fair: Introduce the SMT_BUDDY_ASSIST feature Kayra Cizmeci
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=20261021125419.GK2823843@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=li.wang@linux.dev \
--cc=likunyu@open-hieco.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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®