From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Skip sched-domain traversal when wake affine is disabled
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2026 17:35:22 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261109120522.1704752-2-srikar@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In select_task_rq_fair(), TTWU wakeups for which wake_wide() returns
true, or where the waking CPU is not in the task's allowed CPU mask,
want_affine is set to false.
For these wakeups, the scheduler does not perform wake-affine placement.
The existing code already treats this as a fast-path by exiting the
sched-domain walk before locating an SD_BALANCE_WAKE domain, ultimately
falling through to select_idle_sibling().
However, select_task_rq_fair() still enters the sched-domain traversal
only to break out almost immediately. Avoid this unnecessary work by
jumping directly to the existing fast path when want_affine is false.
As part of this cleanup:
- Move want_affine into the WF_TTWU block where it is used.
- Skip the sched-domain traversal entirely when want_affine is false.
- Remove the now redundant want_affine test from the
SD_WAKE_AFFINE check.
- Remove the corresponding !want_affine loop termination logic.
This preserves existing wakeup placement behavior while avoiding
unnecessary sched-domain iteration for TTWU wakeups that cannot make
use of wake-affine placement.
Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 3ebec186f982..58ff55e093cb 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8832,7 +8832,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
struct sched_domain *tmp, *sd = NULL;
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
int new_cpu = prev_cpu;
- int want_affine = 0;
/* SD_flags and WF_flags share the first nibble */
int sd_flag = wake_flags & 0xF;
@@ -8841,6 +8840,8 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
*/
lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU) {
+ int want_affine;
+
record_wakee(p);
if ((wake_flags & WF_CURRENT_CPU) &&
@@ -8855,6 +8856,8 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
}
want_affine = !wake_wide(p) && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr);
+ if (!want_affine)
+ goto fast_path;
}
for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
@@ -8862,7 +8865,7 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
* If both 'cpu' and 'prev_cpu' are part of this domain,
* cpu is a valid SD_WAKE_AFFINE target.
*/
- if (want_affine && (tmp->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) &&
+ if ((tmp->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) &&
cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(tmp))) {
if (cpu != prev_cpu)
new_cpu = wake_affine(tmp, p, cpu, prev_cpu, sync);
@@ -8878,8 +8881,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
*/
if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
sd = tmp;
- else if (!want_affine)
- break;
}
/* Slow path */
@@ -8887,6 +8888,7 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
return sched_balance_find_dst_cpu(sd, p, cpu, prev_cpu, sd_flag);
/* Fast path */
+fast_path:
if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU)
return select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu);
--
2.43.0
reply other threads:[~2026-11-09 12:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20261109120522.1704752-2-srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--to=srikar@linux.ibm.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@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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®