From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: 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>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <sh@gentwo.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Let sync wakeups target the waker's core
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 09:00:40 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b01847a7-67f6-49a6-85f6-c1de6b292127@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40536fd1-cdc6-4fac-a78f-1ed0df1fcce6@linux.ibm.com>
Hello Vineeth,
On 8/4/2026 5:43 PM, Madadi Vineeth Reddy wrote:
> Hello Prateek,
>
> On 04/08/26 10:19, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>> Hello Vineeth,
>>
>> On 8/1/2026 9:25 AM, Madadi Vineeth Reddy wrote:
>>> -static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpus, int *idle_cpu)
>>> +static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpus,
>>> + int *idle_cpu, int sync_cpu)
>>> {
>>> bool idle = true;
>>> int cpu;
>>>
>>> for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(core)) {
>>> - if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu)) {
>>> + bool sync_waker = (cpu == sync_cpu);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * @sync_cpu, if set, is running a waker that is about to
>>> + * block with nothing else runnable behind it. Treat it as
>>> + * idle so this core stays an idle-core candidate: placing
>>> + * the wakee on a sibling keeps the cache sharing that
>>> + * stacking on the waker's rq would get, without serialising
>>> + * the wakee behind the waker's remaining work.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu) && !sync_waker) {
>>
>> If I'm not wrong, all you want to make is the sync_waker appear idle and
>> then see if you can then consider that core as idle core or not right?
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>> Why can't this be done in select_idle_sibling() extending that early
>> check for (!has_idle_core && cpus_share_cache(prev, target)) condition
>> and then initializing "idle_cpu" in select_idle_cpu() accordingly?
>>
>> Something along the lines of:
>>
>> (Only build tested)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index df8c9c2c7918..dd62bceb3838 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -1301,7 +1301,6 @@ static bool update_deadline(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
>>
>> #include "pelt.h"
>>
>> -static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int cpu);
>> static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct *p);
>> static unsigned long capacity_of(int cpu);
>>
>> @@ -8661,10 +8660,11 @@ static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>> * comparing the average scan cost (tracked in sd->avg_scan_cost) against the
>> * average idle time for this rq (as found in rq->avg_idle).
>> */
>> -static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool has_idle_core, int target)
>> +static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool has_idle_core,
>> + int target, int idle_cpu)
>> {
>> struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_rq_mask);
>> - int i, cpu, idle_cpu = -1, nr = INT_MAX;
>> + int i, cpu, nr = INT_MAX;
>>
>> if (sched_feat(SIS_UTIL) && sd->shared) {
>> /*
>> @@ -8928,7 +8928,7 @@ static inline bool asym_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
>> /*
>> * Try and locate an idle core/thread in the LLC cache domain.
>> */
>> -static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>> +static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target, int sync_cpu)
>> {
>> bool has_idle_core = false;
>> struct sched_domain *sd;
>> @@ -9028,16 +9028,19 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>> return target;
>>
>> if (sched_smt_active()) {
>> + int cpu = ((unsigned)sync_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits) ? sync_cpu : prev;
>> +
>> has_idle_core = test_idle_cores(target);
>>
>> - if (!has_idle_core && cpus_share_cache(prev, target)) {
>> - i = select_idle_smt(p, sd, prev);
>> - if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>> + if (sync_cpu == target || (!has_idle_core && cpus_share_cache(prev, target))) {
>> + i = select_idle_smt(p, sd, cpu);
>> +
>> + if (!has_idle_core && ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits))
>> return i;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, has_idle_core, target);
>> + i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, has_idle_core, target, i);
>
> `i` which is passed could be garbage value if we don't enter sched_smt_active block.
>
>> if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>> return i;
>>
>
> This is different from what I wanted to achieve in a couple of ways.
>
> - Calling `select_idle_smt()` in sync case, would only give an idle CPU in that core but doesn't
> test if that core is idle. That would be lost.
> - You return `i` only when `!has_idle_core`, but I wanted to return waker core given that rest of the siblings
> in that waker core are idle even though there are other idle cores present in the LLC.
>
> I agree that this could be done in `select_idle_sibling` but with a helper function.
> Something like below (build tested)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index df8c9c2c7918..448af3c4b183 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ static bool update_deadline(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
>
> #include "pelt.h"
>
> -static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int cpu);
> +static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int cpu, bool sync_core);
Is this forward declaration necessary? I think you can remove it
entirely.
> static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct *p);
> static unsigned long capacity_of(int cpu);
>
> @@ -8656,6 +8656,27 @@ static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> return -1;
> }
>
> +static int select_idle_sync_core(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd,
> + int target)
> +{
> + int cpu, idle_sibling = -1;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target)) {
> + if (cpu == target)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu))
> + return -1;
Reads a lot like select_idle_smt(). Perhaps you can pass "has_idle_core"
hint to the same and return idle CPU early if !has_idle_core or otherwise
return the first idle sibling if core is idle.
That way even sync_core case is handled by the same function. You can
gate the call with (sync_core || !has_idle_core)
> +
> + if (idle_sibling == -1 &&
> + cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)) &&
> + cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
> + idle_sibling = cpu;
> + }
> +
> + return idle_sibling;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Scan the LLC domain for idle CPUs; this is dynamically regulated by
> * comparing the average scan cost (tracked in sd->avg_scan_cost) against the
> @@ -8928,7 +8949,7 @@ static inline bool asym_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> /*
> * Try and locate an idle core/thread in the LLC cache domain.
> */
> -static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> +static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target, bool sync_core)
> {
> bool has_idle_core = false;
> struct sched_domain *sd;
> @@ -9035,6 +9056,12 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> return i;
> }
> +
> + if (sync_core) {
> + i = select_idle_sync_core(p, sd, target);
> + if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> + return i;
> + }
> }
>
> i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, has_idle_core, target);
> @@ -9733,8 +9760,16 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
> return sched_balance_find_dst_cpu(sd, p, cpu, prev_cpu, sd_flag);
>
> /* Fast path */
> - if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU)
> - return select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu);
> + if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU) {
> + bool sync_core = false;
> + if (want_affine && sync && new_cpu == cpu) {
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +
> + sync_core = (rq->nr_running - cfs_h_nr_delayed(rq)) == 1;
Instead of computing this twice on wake_affine path, you can have a task
flag like sched_task_hot that you just set in wake_affine_idle() before
it returns early from the sync branch.
You can clear it up top in select_task_rq_fair() and check it
select_idle_sibling() to conditionally call select_idle_sync_core().
> + }
> +
> + return select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu, sync_core);
> + }
>
> return new_cpu;
> }
>
> This should also solve the issue raised by Zhan Xusheng and first target waker core given
> that it is idle by giving exception to waker cpu.
>
> Thoughts?
Let me give it a spin. I'll report back if I see anything unexpected.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-05 3:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-01 3:55 Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2026-08-01 6:43 ` Zhan Xusheng
2026-08-04 4:49 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-08-04 12:13 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2026-08-05 3:30 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-08-06 4:50 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2026-08-06 14:22 ` Chen Yu
2026-08-11 5:40 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2026-08-06 13:03 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-08-10 15:01 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2026-08-10 23:17 ` Kayra Cizmeci
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=b01847a7-67f6-49a6-85f6-c1de6b292127@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.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=sh@gentwo.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.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®