mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Pan Deng <pan.deng@intel.com>, <mingo@kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <tianyou.li@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/rt: Split cpupri_vec->cpumask to per NUMA node to reduce contention
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 16:36:02 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <93d7eb33-c3a5-4498-bc26-57806b73d9e0@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260402105530.GA3738786@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Hello Peter,

On 4/2/2026 4:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2026 at 10:11:11AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> 
>> It is still not super clear to me how the logic deals with more than
>> 128CPUs in a DIE domain because that'll need more than the u64 but
>> sbm_find_next_bit() simply does:
>>
>>     tmp = leaf->bitmap & mask; /* All are u64 */
>>
>> expecting just the u64 bitmap to represent all the CPUs in the leaf.
>>
>> If we have, say 256 CPUs per DIE, we get shift(7) and arch_sbm_mask
>> as 7f (127) which allows a leaf to more than 64 CPUs but we are
>> using the "u64 bitmap" directly and not:
>>
>>     find_next_bit(bitmap, arch_sbm_mask)
>>
>> Am I missing something here?
> 
> Nope. That logic just isn't there, that was left as an exercise to the
> reader :-)

Ack! Let me go fiddle with that.

> 
> For AMD in particular it would be good to have one leaf per CCD, but
> since CCD are not enumerated in your topology (they really should be), I
> didn't do that.

We got the extended topology leaf 0x80000026 since 4th Generation EPYC
and we (well Thomas) added the parser support in v6.10 [1] so we can
discover the CCD boundary using that now ;-)

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240314050432.1710-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com/

> 
> Now, I seem to remember we had this discussion in the past some time,
> and you had some hacks available.

That, I believe, was for the NPS boundaries that we don't expose in NPS1
but CCX should be good enough.

> 
> Anyway, the whole premise was to have one leaf/cacheline per cache, such
> that high frequency atomic ops set/clear bit, don't bounce the line
> around.
> 
> I took the nohz bitmap, because it was relatively simple and is known to
> suffer from contention under certain workloads.

Ack! It would be better to tie it to the TOPO_TILE_DOMAIN then which
maps to the "CCX" on AMD and is the LLC boundary. CCD is just a
cluster of CCX that is nearby - mostly the dense core offerings
enumerate 2CCX per CCD.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek


  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-02 11:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-21  6:10 [PATCH v2 0/4] sched/rt: mitigate root_domain cache line contention Pan Deng
2025-07-21  6:10 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/rt: Optimize cpupri_vec layout to mitigate " Pan Deng
2026-03-20 10:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-24  9:36     ` Deng, Pan
2026-03-24 12:11       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-27 10:17         ` Deng, Pan
2026-04-02 10:37           ` Deng, Pan
2026-04-02 10:43           ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-08 10:16   ` Chen, Yu C
2026-04-09 11:47     ` Deng, Pan
2025-07-21  6:10 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] sched/rt: Restructure root_domain to reduce cacheline contention Pan Deng
2026-03-20 10:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-21  6:10 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] sched/rt: Split root_domain->rto_count to per-NUMA-node counters Pan Deng
2026-03-20 10:24   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-23 18:09     ` Tim Chen
2026-03-24 12:16       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-24 22:40         ` Tim Chen
2025-07-21  6:10 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/rt: Split cpupri_vec->cpumask to per NUMA node to reduce contention Pan Deng
2026-03-20 12:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-23 18:45     ` Tim Chen
2026-03-24 12:00       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-31  5:37         ` Chen, Yu C
2026-03-31 10:19           ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-02  3:15             ` Chen, Yu C
2026-04-02  4:41               ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-02 10:55                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-02 11:06                   ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-04-03  5:46                     ` Chen, Yu C
2026-04-03  8:13                       ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-07 20:35                       ` Tim Chen
2026-04-08  3:06                         ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-08 11:35                           ` Chen, Yu C
2026-04-08 15:52                             ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-09  5:17                               ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-09 23:09                                 ` Tim Chen
2026-04-10  5:51                                   ` Chen, Yu C
2026-04-10  6:02                                     ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-05-10 15:59                                       ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/rt: Optimize cpupri_vec layout to mitigate cache line contention Chen Yu
2026-05-10 15:59                                         ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/sbm: Fix domain shift calculation and sbm_find_next_bit() Chen Yu
2026-05-10 15:59                                         ` [PATCH 2/3] lib/sbm: Use dynamically sized bitmap in sbm_leaf Chen Yu
2026-05-10 15:59                                         ` [PATCH 3/3] x86/sbm: Derive leaf granularity from LLC cacheinfo instead of topology domain Chen Yu
2026-05-11  7:48                                           ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-05-12  9:29                                             ` Chen, Yu C
2026-04-08  9:25                         ` [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/rt: Split cpupri_vec->cpumask to per NUMA node to reduce contention Chen, Yu C
2026-04-08 16:47                           ` Tim Chen
2026-03-20  9:59 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] sched/rt: mitigate root_domain cache line contention Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-20 12:50   ` Peter Zijlstra

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=93d7eb33-c3a5-4498-bc26-57806b73d9e0@amd.com \
    --to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=pan.deng@intel.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tianyou.li@intel.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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®