From: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>,
"Madadi Vineeth Reddy" <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
"Len Brown" <len.brown@intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch v3 07/20] sched: Add helper function to decide whether to allow cache aware scheduling
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 16:29:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a36eae1-7d1c-4c23-aec3-056d641e3edd@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7f4f1684-fbe6-4148-bbe4-fc2e138abb98@oracle.com>
On 7/8/2025 8:41 AM, Libo Chen wrote:
> Hi Tim and Chenyu,
>
>
> On 6/18/25 11:27, Tim Chen wrote:
>> Cache-aware scheduling is designed to aggregate threads into their
>> preferred LLC, either via the task wake up path or the load balancing
>> path. One side effect is that when the preferred LLC is saturated,
>> more threads will continue to be stacked on it, degrading the workload's
>> latency. A strategy is needed to prevent this aggregation from going too
>> far such that the preferred LLC is too overloaded.
>>
>> Introduce helper function _get_migrate_hint() to implement the LLC
>> migration policy:
>>
>> 1) A task is aggregated to its preferred LLC if both source/dest LLC
>> are not too busy (<50% utilization, tunable), or the preferred
>> LLC will not be too out of balanced from the non preferred LLC
>> (>20% utilization, tunable, close to imbalance_pct of the LLC
>> domain).
>> 2) Allow a task to be moved from the preferred LLC to the
>> non-preferred one if the non-preferred LLC will not be too out
>> of balanced from the preferred prompting an aggregation task
>> migration later. We are still experimenting with the aggregation
>> and migration policy. Some other possibilities are policy based
>> on LLC's load or average number of tasks running. Those could
>> be tried out by tweaking _get_migrate_hint().
>>
>> The function _get_migrate_hint() returns migration suggestions for the upper-le
>> +__read_mostly unsigned int sysctl_llc_aggr_cap = 50;
>> +__read_mostly unsigned int sysctl_llc_aggr_imb = 20;
>> +
>
>
> I think this patch has a great potential.
>
> Since _get_migrate_hint() is tied to an individual task anyway, why not add a
> per-task llc_aggr_imb which defaults to the sysctl one? Tasks have different
> preferences for llc stacking, they can all be running in the same system at the
> same time. This way you can offer a greater deal of optimization without much
> burden to others.
Yes, this doable. It can be evaluated after the global generic strategy
has been verified to work, like NUMA balancing :)
>
> Also with sysctl_llc_aggr_imb, do we really need SCHED_CACHE_WAKE?
Do you mean the SCHED_CACHE_WAKE or SCHED_CACHE_LB?
> Does setting sysctl_llc_aggr_imb to 0 basically say no preference for either LLC, no?
>
My understanding is that, if sysctl_llc_aggr_imb is 0, the task aggregation
might still consider other aspects, like if that target LLC's
utilization has
exceeded 50% or not.
thanks,
Chenyu> Thanks,
> Libo
>
>> +static enum llc_mig_hint _get_migrate_hint(int src_cpu, int dst_cpu,
>> + unsigned long tsk_util,
>> + bool to_pref)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long src_util, dst_util, src_cap, dst_cap;
>> +
>> + if (cpus_share_cache(src_cpu, dst_cpu))
>> + return mig_allow;
>> +
>> + if (!get_llc_stats(src_cpu, &src_util, &src_cap) ||
>> + !get_llc_stats(dst_cpu, &dst_util, &dst_cap))
>> + return mig_allow;
>> +
>> + if (!fits_llc_capacity(dst_util, dst_cap) &&
>> + !fits_llc_capacity(src_util, src_cap))
>> + return mig_ignore;
>> +
>> + src_util = src_util < tsk_util ? 0 : src_util - tsk_util;
>> + dst_util = dst_util + tsk_util;
>> + if (to_pref) {
>> + /*
>> + * sysctl_llc_aggr_imb is the imbalance allowed between
>> + * preferred LLC and non-preferred LLC.
>> + * Don't migrate if we will get preferred LLC too
>> + * heavily loaded and if the dest is much busier
>> + * than the src, in which case migration will
>> + * increase the imbalance too much.
>> + */
>> + if (!fits_llc_capacity(dst_util, dst_cap) &&
>> + util_greater(dst_util, src_util))
>> + return mig_forbid;
>> + } else {
>> + /*
>> + * Don't migrate if we will leave preferred LLC
>> + * too idle, or if this migration leads to the
>> + * non-preferred LLC falls within sysctl_aggr_imb percent
>> + * of preferred LLC, leading to migration again
>> + * back to preferred LLC.
>> + */
>> + if (fits_llc_capacity(src_util, src_cap) ||
>> + !util_greater(src_util, dst_util))
>> + return mig_forbid;
>> + }
>> + return mig_allow;
>> +}
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-08 8:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-18 18:27 [RFC patch v3 00/20] Cache " Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 01/20] sched: Cache aware load-balancing Tim Chen
2025-06-26 12:23 ` Jianyong Wu
2025-06-26 13:32 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-06-27 0:10 ` Tim Chen
2025-06-27 2:13 ` Jianyong Wu
2025-07-03 19:29 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-04 8:40 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-07-04 8:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-04 8:54 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-07 19:57 ` Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 02/20] sched: Several fixes for cache aware scheduling Tim Chen
2025-07-03 19:33 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-07 21:02 ` Tim Chen
2025-07-08 1:15 ` Libo Chen
2025-07-08 7:54 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-07-08 15:47 ` Libo Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 03/20] sched: Avoid task migration within its preferred LLC Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 04/20] sched: Avoid calculating the cpumask if the system is overloaded Tim Chen
2025-07-03 19:39 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-07 14:57 ` Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 05/20] sched: Add hysteresis to switch a task's preferred LLC Tim Chen
2025-07-02 6:47 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-07-02 21:47 ` Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 06/20] sched: Save the per LLC utilization for better cache aware scheduling Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 07/20] sched: Add helper function to decide whether to allow " Tim Chen
2025-07-08 0:41 ` Libo Chen
2025-07-08 8:29 ` Chen, Yu C [this message]
2025-07-08 17:22 ` Libo Chen
2025-07-09 14:41 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-07-09 21:31 ` Libo Chen
2025-07-08 21:59 ` Tim Chen
2025-07-09 21:22 ` Libo Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 08/20] sched: Set up LLC indexing Tim Chen
2025-07-03 19:44 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-04 9:36 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 09/20] sched: Introduce task preferred LLC field Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 10/20] sched: Calculate the number of tasks that have LLC preference on a runqueue Tim Chen
2025-07-03 19:45 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-04 15:00 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-06-18 18:27 ` [RFC patch v3 11/20] sched: Introduce per runqueue task LLC preference counter Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 12/20] sched: Calculate the total number of preferred LLC tasks during load balance Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 13/20] sched: Tag the sched group as llc_balance if it has tasks prefer other LLC Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 14/20] sched: Introduce update_llc_busiest() to deal with groups having preferred LLC tasks Tim Chen
2025-07-03 19:52 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-05 2:26 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 15/20] sched: Introduce a new migration_type to track the preferred LLC load balance Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 16/20] sched: Consider LLC locality for active balance Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 17/20] sched: Consider LLC preference when picking tasks from busiest queue Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 18/20] sched: Do not migrate task if it is moving out of its preferred LLC Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 19/20] sched: Introduce SCHED_CACHE_LB to control cache aware load balance Tim Chen
2025-06-18 18:28 ` [RFC patch v3 20/20] sched: Introduce SCHED_CACHE_WAKE to control LLC aggregation on wake up Tim Chen
2025-06-19 6:39 ` [RFC patch v3 00/20] Cache aware scheduling Yangyu Chen
2025-06-19 13:21 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-06-19 14:12 ` Yangyu Chen
2025-06-20 19:25 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-06-22 0:39 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-06-24 17:47 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-06-23 16:45 ` Tim Chen
2025-06-24 5:00 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-06-24 12:16 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-06-25 4:19 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-06-25 0:30 ` Tim Chen
2025-06-25 4:30 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-07-03 20:00 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-07-04 10:09 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-07-09 19:39 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-07-10 3:33 ` Chen, Yu C
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=6a36eae1-7d1c-4c23-aec3-056d641e3edd@intel.com \
--to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=libo.chen@oracle.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@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.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®