mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
	maddy@linux.ibm.com,  linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	peterz@infradead.org
Cc: christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	 ritesh.list@gmail.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
	yu.c.chen@intel.com,  vineethr@linux.ibm.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, srikar@linux.ibm.com,
	 npiggin@gmail.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:58:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4a71f654cdc03973f309754a2f61810b4547a471.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261023131646.2907938-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, 2026-10-23 at 18:46 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> Provide an option for users to enable cache aware scheduling on powerpc
> via a command line parameter.
> 
> More details of the problem and context is in cover-letter of v1.
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261012102037.2477378-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com/
> 
> v1->v2:
> - Move to kernel parameters from debugfs. This helps to keep
>   llc_id consistent which doesn't change across sched domain
>   rebuilds. (Tim Chen)
> - Update arch_llc_mask to reflect the override (Tim Chen)
> - Limit only to mc, pkg (Srikar Dronamraju)
> 
> Notes:
> 
> - A selftest for the functional validation of cache aware scheduling
>   is a good idea as we discussed in v1. It is a significant change on
>   its own and likely takes time. I am thinking it might be good idea to
>   revisit selftests for scheduler in general. (We have very few).
>   Maybe worth a discussion in coming OSPM. 
> 
> - I am on parental leave. This version is pretty much what I had last week
>   and I haven't gotten any chance to update since. just sending it out.
>   Sorry if I have missed to address any comments.
>   Please expect delays in my response.

Thanks for sending this while on leave, and congratulations!

The updated approach with boot parameters looks good to me.
Some minor points:

1. llc_bytes. As Chen Yu noted, get_effective_llc_bytes() returns 0
   on powerpc because the generic cacheinfo is not populated. With
   NUMA balancing on and the default llc_aggr_tolerance, any process
   with a footprint then fails exceed_llc_capacity(), so cache aware
   scheduling still does not engage. 

2. Bisection. Patch 2 moves SD_SHARE_LLC to MC/PKG, but
   arch_llc_mask() only follows in patch 3, so a kernel at patch 2
   booted with llc_override=mc has sd_llc at MC with per-L2 llc ids,
   causing mismatch. It may be better to squash 2 and 3.

3. llc_override is only written at boot. Making it
   
        static int llc_override __ro_after_init;

   and then you don't have to worry about READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE
   to it as Chen Yu pointed out.

Tim

> 
> Shrikanth Hegde (4):
>   powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter
>   powerpc/topology: Update mc/pkg flags based on llc_override
>   powerpc/topology: update arch_llc_mask based llc_override
>   Documentation/powerpc: Add details about llc_override
> 
>  .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         | 15 ++++
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h           |  8 +--
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c                     | 69 +++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-10-23 17:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-23 13:16 Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 15:42   ` Chen Yu
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] powerpc/topology: Update mc/pkg flags based on llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc/topology: Update arch_llc_mask based llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] Documentation/powerpc: Add details about llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 17:58 ` Tim Chen [this message]

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=4a71f654cdc03973f309754a2f61810b4547a471.camel@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.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®