From: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun2@huawei.com>
Cc: <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
<bsegall@google.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>,
<vschneid@redhat.com>, <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
<juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
<tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"chen.yu@linux.dev" <chen.yu@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 linux 1/2] sched/cache: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work by only scan the visisted cpus
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 16:27:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b86112e7-0473-4456-b415-e279edd8e7d3@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260717041231.3324851-2-luogengkun2@huawei.com>
On 7/17/2026 12:12 PM, Luo Gengkun wrote:
> struct sched_cache_stat {
> @@ -2398,6 +2399,7 @@ struct sched_cache_stat {
> unsigned long next_scan;
> unsigned long footprint;
> int cpu;
> + cpumask_var_t visited_cpus;
need zalloc_cpumask_var()/free_cpumask_var() in this patch.
> } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>
> #else
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index d78467ec6ee1..ab9010b2ec49 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1585,6 +1585,7 @@ void mm_init_sched(struct mm_struct *mm,
> pcpu_sched->runtime = 0;
> /* a slightly stale cpu epoch is acceptible */
> pcpu_sched->epoch = rq->cpu_epoch;
> + pcpu_sched->epoch_last_visit = rq->cpu_epoch;
> epoch = rq->cpu_epoch;
> }
>
> @@ -1635,13 +1636,23 @@ static inline void __update_mm_sched(struct rq *rq,
> }
> }
>
> -static unsigned long fraction_mm_sched(struct rq *rq,
> - struct sched_cache_time *pcpu_sched)
> +static unsigned long fraction_mm_sched(int cpu,
> + struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> + struct sched_cache_time *pcpu_sched =
> + per_cpu_ptr(mm->sc_stat.pcpu_sched, cpu);
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +
> guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&rq->cpu_epoch_lock);
>
> __update_mm_sched(rq, pcpu_sched);
>
> + /* Skip the rq that has not been hit for a long time */
> + if ((rq->cpu_epoch - pcpu_sched->epoch_last_visit) > llc_epoch_affinity_timeout) {
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm->sc_stat.visited_cpus);
It may be worth adding a comment in account_mm_sched() or task_cache_work()
to clarify the race condition. As Tim noted, it happens between setting
and reading
visited_cpus. That said, it's a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency
- locking would fix it but at the cost of extra overhead IMO - and the
update-to-date
visited_cpus could be read properly in the next invoke of task_cache_work().
thanks,
Chenyu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-17 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-17 4:12 [PATCH v6 0/2] Cache aware scheduling: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work Luo Gengkun
2026-07-17 4:12 ` [PATCH v6 linux 1/2] sched/cache: Reduce the overhead of task_cache_work by only scan the visisted cpus Luo Gengkun
2026-07-17 8:27 ` Chen, Yu C [this message]
2026-07-17 4:12 ` [PATCH v6 linux 2/2] -- DO NOT APPLY!!! -- sched/cache/debug: Add trace event and sched feature to track scan cost Luo Gengkun
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=b86112e7-0473-4456-b415-e279edd8e7d3@intel.com \
--to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chen.yu@linux.dev \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luogengkun2@huawei.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--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