mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com>,
	peterz@infradead.org,  mingo@redhat.com
Cc: yu.c.chen@intel.com, kayracizmeci@gmail.com,
	kprateek.nayak@amd.com,  juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
		rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	vschneid@redhat.com, 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cache: Check reduced capacity before alb_break_llc()
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 16:24:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <93e3e1388b3d4512818e7f1e19003e0feb4890dd.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261029023650.3404429-1-zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com>

On Thu, 2026-10-29 at 10:36 +0800, Zhan Xusheng wrote:
> From: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com>
> 
> need_active_balance() moves the only CFS task off a CPU whose capacity
> is reduced, for example by IRQ load, to an idle CPU with more.
> alb_break_llc() runs first and refuses to move a lone task off its
> preferred LLC, so if no other CPU in that LLC is idle the task stays on
> the reduced CPU.  
> 

The patch moves the task without knowing whether another CPU in
the preferred LLC is idle.

> Like asym packing, which was moved ahead of
> alb_break_llc() for the same reason, this is a performance case that
> cache locality should not override.
> 
> With two LLCs of two CPUs, the other CPU of the task's LLC busy and 60%
> of the task's CPU spent in a hardirq, a CPU-bound two-thread process
> stayed there for 20 seconds at 38% of its normal throughput.  With this
> change it moves to the idle LLC within a second, as it does with cache
> aware scheduling disabled.

I agree that this is an issue.  But I have a couple of reservations about
the proposed fix.

1) There could be other idle CPUs in the preferred LLC. It would be
better for the task to move to one of them, through the idle balance
on those CPUs (via same reduced capacity check), than to move to a non-preferred LLC now.

I think the LLC override should apply only when no idle CPU in the
preferred LLC has enough capacity, as your change log describes.

2) There could be ping pong migrations.  Cache aware scheduling could 
move the task back to the CPU, because with only IRQ load on it, that
CPU is considered idle. I think this would also need to be dealt with.

Could you check nr_migrations in /proc/<pid>/sched, or trace
sched_migrate_task, over the 20 seconds on your setup
before and after your patch?  A run with 20% to 40% irq load would also help.

Tim

> 
> Fixes: 714059f79ff0 ("sched/cache: Handle moving single tasks to/from their preferred LLC")
> Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index cfc982205b98..e313c6d212c6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -13585,12 +13585,6 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>  	if (asym_active_balance(env))
>  		return 1;
>  
> -	if (alb_break_llc(env))
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	if (imbalanced_active_balance(env))
> -		return 1;
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * The dst_cpu is idle and the src_cpu CPU has only 1 CFS task.
>  	 * It's worth migrating the task if the src_cpu's capacity is reduced
> @@ -13604,6 +13598,12 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>  			return 1;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (alb_break_llc(env))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (imbalanced_active_balance(env))
> +		return 1;
> +
>  	if (env->migration_type == migrate_misfit ||
>  	    env->migration_type == migrate_llc_task)
>  		return 1;
> 
> base-commit: 65ba8f34ec886ec72b2c07ddc8cf3d815c32869d

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-10-30 23:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-29  2:36 Zhan Xusheng
2026-10-29  7:13 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-29  7:50   ` Zhan Xusheng
2026-10-29  8:13     ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-29  8:18   ` Chen Yu
2026-10-29  8:18 ` Chen Yu
2026-10-29  8:55   ` Zhan Xusheng
2026-10-30 15:04     ` Chen Yu
2026-10-30 23:24 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2026-10-31  9:24   ` Zhan Xusheng

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=93e3e1388b3d4512818e7f1e19003e0feb4890dd.camel@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kayracizmeci@gmail.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com \
    --cc=zhanxusheng@xiaomi.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®