From: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched_ext: Choose prev_cpu if idle and cache affine without WF_SYNC
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:44:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <828a9227-6a42-4bc8-a55e-fda9febe6e82@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z9hZ9fgtGNd8DeEf@gpd3>
On 3/17/2025 6:20 PM, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 04:28:02AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Consider that the previous CPU is cache affined to the waker's CPU and
>> is idle. Currently, scx's default select function only selects the
>> previous CPU in this case if WF_SYNC request is also made to wakeup on the
>> waker's CPU.
>>
>> This means, without WF_SYNC, the previous CPU being cache affined to the
>> waker and is idle is not considered. This seems extreme. WF_SYNC is not
>> normally passed to the wakeup path outside of some IPC drivers but it is
>> very possible that the task is cache hot on previous CPU and shares
>> cache with the waker CPU. Lets avoid too many migrations and select the
>> previous CPU in such cases.
>>
>> This change is consistent with the fair scheduler's behavior as well. In
>> select_idle_sibling(), the previous CPU is selected if it is cache
>> affined with the target. This is done regardless of WF_SYNC and before
>> any scanning of fully idle cores is done.
>>
>> One difference still exists though between SCX and CFS in this regard, in CFS
>> we first check if the target CPU is idle before checking if the previous CPU is
>> idle. However that could be a matter of choice and in the future, that behavior
>> could also be unified.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/ext.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
>> index 5a81d9a1e31f..3b1a489e2aaf 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
>> @@ -3479,7 +3479,7 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
>> {
>> const struct cpumask *llc_cpus = NULL;
>> const struct cpumask *numa_cpus = NULL;
>> - s32 cpu;
>> + s32 cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>
>> *found = false;
>>
>> @@ -3507,22 +3507,20 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
>> llc_cpus = llc_span(prev_cpu);
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * If the waker's CPU is cache affine and prev_cpu is idle, then avoid
>> + * a migration.
>> + */
>> + if (cpus_share_cache(cpu, prev_cpu) &&
>> + test_and_clear_cpu_idle(prev_cpu)) {
>> + cpu = prev_cpu;
>> + goto cpu_found;
>> + }
>> +
>
> One potential issue that I see is that when SMT is enabled, you may end up
> using prev_cpu also when the other sibling is busy. Maybe we should check
> if prev_cpu is set in the SMT idle cpumask.
Hmm so you're suggesting select previous if it is part of a fully idle core
*and* shares cache with the waker.
That does sound reasonable to me, will look more into it, thanks.
- Joel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-17 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-17 8:28 Joel Fernandes
2025-03-17 17:08 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-17 17:30 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-17 17:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-03-18 5:17 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-17 22:11 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-03-18 5:09 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-18 17:00 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-03-18 17:46 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-18 22:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-03-17 22:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-03-17 22:25 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-17 22:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-03-18 0:12 ` Libo Chen
2025-03-18 0:14 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-17 17:20 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-17 22:44 ` Joel Fernandes [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=828a9227-6a42-4bc8-a55e-fda9febe6e82@nvidia.com \
--to=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--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®