From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
maddy@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
peterz@infradead.org
Cc: christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ritesh.list@gmail.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
yu.c.chen@intel.com, vineethr@linux.ibm.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, srikar@linux.ibm.com,
npiggin@gmail.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 23:05:33 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d64e866-1bfd-4e7c-aa8f-fac4f49e8e91@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4a71f654cdc03973f309754a2f61810b4547a471.camel@linux.intel.com>
Hi Tim, Thanks for reviewing the changes.
On 10/23/26 11:28 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2026-10-23 at 18:46 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>> Provide an option for users to enable cache aware scheduling on powerpc
>> via a command line parameter.
>>
>> More details of the problem and context is in cover-letter of v1.
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261012102037.2477378-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com/
>>
>> v1->v2:
>> - Move to kernel parameters from debugfs. This helps to keep
>> llc_id consistent which doesn't change across sched domain
>> rebuilds. (Tim Chen)
>> - Update arch_llc_mask to reflect the override (Tim Chen)
>> - Limit only to mc, pkg (Srikar Dronamraju)
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> - A selftest for the functional validation of cache aware scheduling
>> is a good idea as we discussed in v1. It is a significant change on
>> its own and likely takes time. I am thinking it might be good idea to
>> revisit selftests for scheduler in general. (We have very few).
>> Maybe worth a discussion in coming OSPM.
>>
>> - I am on parental leave. This version is pretty much what I had last week
>> and I haven't gotten any chance to update since. just sending it out.
>> Sorry if I have missed to address any comments.
>> Please expect delays in my response.
>
> Thanks for sending this while on leave, and congratulations!
>
> The updated approach with boot parameters looks good to me.
> Some minor points:
>
> 1. llc_bytes. As Chen Yu noted, get_effective_llc_bytes() returns 0
> on powerpc because the generic cacheinfo is not populated. With
> NUMA balancing on and the default llc_aggr_tolerance, any process
> with a footprint then fails exceed_llc_capacity(), so cache aware
> scheduling still does not engage.
>
Let me first see if powerpc can migrate to generic cacheinfo.
> 2. Bisection. Patch 2 moves SD_SHARE_LLC to MC/PKG, but
> arch_llc_mask() only follows in patch 3, so a kernel at patch 2
> booted with llc_override=mc has sd_llc at MC with per-L2 llc ids,
> causing mismatch. It may be better to squash 2 and 3.
Alright.
>
> 3. llc_override is only written at boot. Making it
>
> static int llc_override __ro_after_init;
>
> and then you don't have to worry about READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE
> to it as Chen Yu pointed out.
>
Sure.
> Tim
>
>>
>> Shrikanth Hegde (4):
>> powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter
>> powerpc/topology: Update mc/pkg flags based on llc_override
>> powerpc/topology: update arch_llc_mask based llc_override
>> Documentation/powerpc: Add details about llc_override
>>
>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 15 ++++
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h | 8 +--
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++--
>> 3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-10 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-23 13:16 Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 15:42 ` Chen Yu
2026-11-10 17:28 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] powerpc/topology: Update mc/pkg flags based on llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc/topology: Update arch_llc_mask based llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] Documentation/powerpc: Add details about llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter Tim Chen
2026-11-10 17:35 ` Shrikanth Hegde [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=9d64e866-1bfd-4e7c-aa8f-fac4f49e8e91@linux.ibm.com \
--to=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.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®