mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jianyong Wu <wujianyong@hygon.cn>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: 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>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
	Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
	Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"David Hildenbrand" <david@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"jianyong.wu@outlook.com" <jianyong.wu@outlook.com>,
	Yuan Zhong <zhongyuan@hygon.cn>, Huangsj <huangsj@hygon.cn>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"Chen Yu" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
	Fengyu Wang <wangfengyu@hygon.cn>,
	Zhiwei Ying <yingzhiwei@hygon.cn>,
	"justin.he@arm.com" <justin.he@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v2 11/23] sched/cache: Introduce helpers for task migration decisions
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 02:04:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b32770ca3a8491dbf2d215fccc75702@hygon.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fac52a49e611f7f6a6637f04a2e44e8c23a260c6.camel@linux.intel.com>

Hi Tim,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 5:11 AM
> To: Jianyong Wu <wujianyong@hygon.cn>; Ingo Molnar
> <mingo@redhat.com>; Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>; Juri Lelli
> <juri.lelli@redhat.com>; Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>;
> Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> Cc: 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>; K
> Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>; Shrikanth Hegde
> <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>; Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>; Andrew
> Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; David Hildenbrand
> <david@kernel.org>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org;
> jianyong.wu@outlook.com; Yuan Zhong <zhongyuan@hygon.cn>; Huangsj
> <huangsj@hygon.cn>; Fengyu Wang <wangfengyu@hygon.cn>; Zhiwei Ying
> <yingzhiwei@hygon.cn>; justin.he@arm.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/23] sched/cache: Introduce helpers for task
> migration decisions
> 
> On Thu, 2026-08-27 at 20:28 +0800, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> > Cache-aware scheduling makes migration decisions purely based on LLC
> > affinity, allowing moves only toward a task's preferred LLC. This rigid
> > policy cannot handle workloads that do not fit within a single LLC.
> > A better approach is on-demand thread aggregation across LLCs: as the
> > thread count increases, additional LLCs are recruited to host threads,
> > enabling workload scaling at LLC granularity.
> >
> > To realize this behaviour, we need to pick the next eligible LLC once
> > currently selected LLCs become saturated.
> >
> > Earlier patches have built node-level and LLC-level distance matrices.
> > From these matrices we obtain a node-affinity sequence, and within each
> > node an intra-node LLC-affinity sequence. These sequences provide the
> > priority order used to pick subsequent LLC candidates.
> >
> > This patch adds a helper routine to determine whether task migration
> > is permitted. It checks whether the destination CPU resides within the
> > first eligible LLC. Migration is permitted if this condition holds,
> > and vice versa.
> >
> > The first eligible LLC is resolved via a two-stage policy. The first
> > stage operates at NUMA-node granularity: we iterate over the
> > node-affinity sequence to find the first node that can accommodate
> > the task. Once such a node is found, the second stage selects the
> > first capacity-available LLC within this node by walking the
> > intra-node LLC-affinity sequence.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jianyong Wu <wujianyong@hygon.cn>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 185
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 185 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index dc7bbdb1ab98..cfbd596992ab 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10610,6 +10610,191 @@ static enum llc_mig can_migrate_llc(int
> src_cpu, int dst_cpu,
> >  	return mig_llc;
> >  }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Like get_llc_stats but for sched domain that above LLC level.
> > + * Based on get_llc_stats, we can accumulate utilization and cap for
> > + * sched domain in the granularity of LLC.
> > + */
> > +static bool get_span_stats(const struct cpumask *span, unsigned long
> *util_out,
> > +					unsigned long *cap_out)
> > +{
> > +	cpumask_var_t mask;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +	unsigned long util_tmp, cap_tmp, util = 0, cap = 0;
> > +	struct sched_domain *sd_tmp;
> > +
> > +	if (!span || !util_out || !cap_out)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&mask, GFP_ATOMIC))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	cpumask_copy(mask, span);
> > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> > +		if (!get_llc_stats(cpu, &util_tmp, &cap_tmp)) {
> > +			free_cpumask_var(mask);
> > +			return false;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		sd_tmp = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc, cpu));
> > +		cpumask_andnot(mask, mask, sched_domain_span(sd_tmp));
> > +		util += util_tmp;
> > +		cap += cap_tmp;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	*util_out = util;
> > +	*cap_out = cap;
> > +
> > +	free_cpumask_var(mask);
> > +	return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Decide if migration should happen on a specific node.
> > + * The node here is an LLC or a NUMA.
> > + */
> > +static enum llc_mig __maybe_unused can_migrate_node(int src_cpu, int
> dst_cpu,
> > +			struct task_struct *p, bool to_pref)
> > +{
> > +	const struct cpumask *span;
> > +	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > +	unsigned long dst_util, dst_cap, tsk_util = 0;
> > +	unsigned long src_util = 0, src_cap = 0;
> > +	unsigned long acc_util = 0, acc_cap = 0;
> > +	int node, target_cpu = src_cpu;
> > +	int get_src = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (!get_llc_stats(dst_cpu, &dst_util, &dst_cap))
> > +		return mig_unrestricted;
> > +
> > +	if (!get_llc_stats(src_cpu, &src_util, &src_cap))
> > +		src_cap = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (p) {
> > +		mm = p->mm;
> > +		if (mm) {
> > +			if (mm->sc_stat.cpu >= 0)
> > +				target_cpu = mm->sc_stat.cpu;
> > +		}
> > +		tsk_util = task_util(p);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	dst_util = dst_util + tsk_util;
> > +
> > +	if (to_pref) {
> > +		unsigned long dst_pre = dst_util - tsk_util;
> 
> dst_pre was limited to this scope but was used later in a different
> scope.  Should move the declaration to parent scope.
>
> > +
> > +		if (fits_llc_capacity(dst_util, dst_cap))
> > +			return mig_llc;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * The destination is over the margin. That is a reason to
> > +		 * refuse a task while the margin can still be met, but not
> > +		 * while every LLC of the node is over it: no placement
> > +		 * satisfies the margin then, and refusing every migration
> > +		 * leaves the imbalance in place.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * Let the task through when the move still lowers the peak,
> > +		 * that is when the source is noticeably heavier than the
> > +		 * destination and carries at least two more tasks worth of
> > +		 * utilization. The second condition keeps the destination
> > +		 * from becoming the heavier side, which would bounce the
> > +		 * task straight back.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (src_cap && util_greater(src_util, dst_pre) &&
> > +		    src_util >= dst_pre + 2 * tsk_util)
> > +			return mig_llc;
> > +
> > +		return mig_forbid;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	for_each_sched_node(target_cpu, node) {
> > +		unsigned long u = 0, c = 0, nu, nc;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * The walk starts at the anchor, so the nodes it crosses before
> > +		 * reaching the source say nothing about this migration: the task
> > +		 * does not live there and is not going there. Judging them only
> > +		 * lets an unrelated node with room refuse the move. Start at
> the
> > +		 * node the task actually sits on.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (!get_src) {
> > +			if (!cpumask_test_cpu(src_cpu, cpumask_of_node(node)))
> > +				continue;
> > +			else
> > +				get_src = 1;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (cpumask_test_cpu(dst_cpu, cpumask_of_node(node))) {
> > +			nu = 0;
> > +			nc = 0;
> > +			for_each_llc_node_span(node, span) {
> > +				get_span_stats(span, &u, &c);
> > +				nu += u;
> > +				nc += c;
> > +				if (cpumask_test_cpu(dst_cpu, span)) {
> > +					if (fits_llc_capacity(u + tsk_util, c))
> > +						return mig_llc;
> > +
> > +					/*
> > +					 * The destination is over the margin,
> > +					 * but so may be the source. Refusing
> > +					 * then leaves the peak where it is:
> > +					 * a LLC at seven tasks stays at seven
> > +					 * while a neighbour in the same node
> > +					 * sits at four, because taking one
> > +					 * more would put that neighbour over
> > +					 * the margin as well.
> > +					 *
> > +					 * Let the task through when the move
> > +					 * still lowers the peak, guarded the
> > +					 * same way as the aggregation path:
> > +					 * the source must be noticeably
> > +					 * heavier and carry at least two more
> > +					 * tasks worth of utilization, so the
> > +					 * destination cannot end up the
> > +					 * heavier side and bounce it back.
> > +					 */
> > +					if (src_cap &&
> > +					    util_greater(src_util, u + tsk_util) &&
> > +					    src_util >= u + 2 * tsk_util)
> > +						return mig_llc;
> > +
> > +					return mig_forbid;
> > +				/*
> > +				 * A nearer LLC only justifies vetoing this
> > +				 * migration if the task would actually fit
> > +				 * there, so account for its utilization the
> > +				 * same way the destination branch above does.
> > +				 * Without it a LLC already holding one task
> > +				 * per core still reads as having room and
> > +				 * vetoes every migration towards a farther,
> > +				 * genuinely idle LLC.
> > +				 */
> > +				} else if (fits_llc_capacity(acc_util + nu + tsk_util,
> > +						acc_cap + nc)
> > +						&& fits_llc_capacity(u + tsk_util, c)
> > +						&& !util_greater(u, dst_pre))
> 
> Got a compile error here when I try to build the code.  Seems like dst_pre
> was declared in previous scope above.
> Likely the posted version is slightly different from the tested version.
>

Right, the dst_pre fix landed in patch 20 but wasn't folded back into this
patch, so patch 11 alone doesn't build -- the full series builds because
patch 20 fixes it. I'll squash the fix into this patch in the next version.

I will also compile-test each individual commit before posting the next version.

Thanks
Jianyong
 
> $ make
>   DESCEND objtool
>   CC      kernel/sched/fair.o
> kernel/sched/fair.c: In function ‘can_migrate_node’:
> kernel/sched/fair.c:10855:69: error: ‘dst_pre’ undeclared (first use in this
> function)
> 10855 |
> && !util_greater(u, dst_pre))
>       |
> ^~~~~~~
> kernel/sched/fair.c:10618:27: note: in definition of macro ‘util_greater’
> 10618 |         ((util1) * 100 > (util2) * (100 + llc_imb_pct))
>       |                           ^~~~~
> kernel/sched/fair.c:10855:69: note: each undeclared identifier is reported
> only once for each function it appears in
> 10855 |
> && !util_greater(u, dst_pre))
>       |
> ^~~~~~~
> kernel/sched/fair.c:10618:27: note: in definition of macro ‘util_greater’
> 10618 |         ((util1) * 100 > (util2) * (100 + llc_imb_pct))
>       |                           ^~~~~
> make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:290: kernel/sched/fair.o] Error 1
> make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:551: kernel/sched] Error 2
> make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:551: kernel] Error 2
> make[1]: *** [/home/tim/linux/Makefile:2229: .] Error 2
> make: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
> 
> Tim
> 
> > +					return mig_forbid;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/* Don't migrate if this is a good place to live. */
> > +		for_each_llc_node_span(node, span) {
> > +			get_span_stats(span, &u, &c);
> > +			if (cpumask_test_cpu(src_cpu, span)) {
> > +				if (fits_llc_capacity(u, c))
> > +					return mig_forbid;
> > +			} else {
> > +				if (fits_llc_capacity(u + tsk_util, c))
> > +					return mig_forbid;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return mig_unrestricted;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Check if task p can migrate from source LLC to
> >   * destination LLC in terms of cache aware load balance.


  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-03  2:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-27 12:27 [RFC PATCH v2 00/23] sched: Scale cache-aware aggregation at LLC granularity Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/23] sched/topology: Add llc_to_node() to translate LLC id to NUMA node Jianyong Wu
2026-08-29 10:31   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-31  9:43     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/23] sched/topology: Introduce a NUMA distance matrix with unique distance values Jianyong Wu
2026-08-31 11:50   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01  6:57     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01  7:13       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01  7:37         ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01  8:48   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-02  7:11     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/23] sched/topology: Introduce a macro to traverse node Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/23] sched/topology: Introduce a method to calculate the llc distance Jianyong Wu
2026-08-31 13:12   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-27 12:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/23] sched/topology: Introduce a macro to traverse LLC inside node Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/23] sched/topology: Add sd_node for the NODE sched domain Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/23] sched/cache: Prioritize preferred NUMA node selection over LLC selection Jianyong Wu
2026-08-31 13:16   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01  7:44     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-31 13:22   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01  8:05     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/23] sched/topology: Introduce a per-CPU tasks NUMA preferred counter Jianyong Wu
2026-08-31 13:23   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01  8:14     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-31 13:24   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01  8:31     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01 10:21       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01 13:02         ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/23] sched/cache: Account percpu sd task NUMA preference Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01  7:54   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01  8:41     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/23] sched/topology: Add per-sd scratch for the load balance affinity score Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01  8:02   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01 11:55     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/23] sched/cache: Introduce helpers for task migration decisions Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01  9:08   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-02  5:08     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01 11:32   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-02  5:46     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-02 21:11   ` Tim Chen
2026-09-03  2:04     ` Jianyong Wu [this message]
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/23] sched/cache: Introduce rq affinity gain calculation Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01  9:58   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01 12:23     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01 10:16   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01 12:34     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/23] sched/cache: Pick optimal src rq/group using affinity promotion metric Jianyong Wu
2026-08-27 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/23] sched/cache: Drop prefer_sibling restriction for llc_balance Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01 10:29   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-01 13:25     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  1:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/23] sched/cache: Judge migration eligibility in LLC granularity Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  2:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/23] sched/cache: Allow un-throttled active balance to spread out of a full LLC Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  2:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/23] sched/fair: Fine-granularity NUMA balancing Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01 12:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-09-02  6:43     ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  2:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 18/23] sched/cache: Scan all prefer nodes in thread group Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  2:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 19/23] sched/cache: Remove preferred LLC/node check no longer needed Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  2:11 ` [RFC PATCH v2 20/23] sched/cache: Estimate utilization of the whole thread group Jianyong Wu
2026-09-01 14:44   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-28  2:13 ` [RFC PATCH v2 21/23] sched/cache: Spread workloads within an estimated LLC range Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  2:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 22/23] sched/cache: Walk the preferred node from the preferred LLC Jianyong Wu
2026-08-28  2:15 ` [RFC PATCH v2 23/23] sched/debug: Print task preferred LLC for scheduler debugging Jianyong Wu

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=7b32770ca3a8491dbf2d215fccc75702@hygon.cn \
    --to=wujianyong@hygon.cn \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=huangsj@hygon.cn \
    --cc=jianyong.wu@outlook.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=justin.he@arm.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pauld@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wangfengyu@hygon.cn \
    --cc=yingzhiwei@hygon.cn \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=zhongyuan@hygon.cn \
    /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®