From: Shubhang <sh@gentwo.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
shubhang@os.amperecomputing.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Shijie Huang <Shijie.Huang@amperecomputing.com>,
Frank Wang <zwang@amperecomputing.com>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
Adam Li <adam.li@amperecomputing.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prefer cache-hot prev_cpu for wakeup
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:35:23 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d1cbc53d-d4cf-bc5a-6468-89e9a1d86f33@gentwo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c22de852-f2f6-48d7-831f-ca2a06365783@arm.com>
The system is an 80 core Ampere Altra with a two-level
sched domain topology. The MC domain contains all 80 cores.
I agree that placing the condition earlier in `select_idle_sibling()`
aligns better with convention. I will move the check (EAS Aware) to the
top of the function and submit a v2 patch.
Best,
Shubhang Kaushik
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 18.10.25 01:00, Shubhang Kaushik via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: Shubhang Kaushik <shubhang@os.amperecomputing.com>
>>
>> Modify the wakeup path in `select_task_rq_fair()` to prioritize cache
>> locality for waking tasks. The previous fast path always attempted to
>> find an idle sibling, even if the task's prev CPU was not truly busy.
>>
>> The original problem was that under some circumstances, this could lead
>> to unnecessary task migrations away from a cache-hot core, even when
>> the task's prev CPU was a suitable candidate. The scheduler's internal
>> mechanism `cpu_overutilized()` provide an evaluation of CPU load.
>>
>> To address this, the wakeup heuristic is updated to check the status of
>> the task's `prev_cpu` first:
>> - If the `prev_cpu` is not overutilized (as determined by
>> `cpu_overutilized()`, via PELT), the task is woken up on
>> its previous CPU. This leverages cache locality and avoids
>> a potentially unnecessary migration.
>> - If the `prev_cpu` is considered busy or overutilized, the scheduler
>> falls back to the existing behavior of searching for an idle sibling.
>
> How does you sched domain topology look like? How many CPUs do you have
> in your MC domain?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shubhang Kaushik <shubhang@os.amperecomputing.com>
>> ---
>> This patch optimizes the scheduler's wakeup path to prioritize cache
>> locality by keeping a task on its previous CPU if it is not overutilized,
>> falling back to a sibling search only when necessary.
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index bc0b7ce8a65d6bbe616953f530f7a02bb619537c..bb0d28d7d9872642cb5a4076caeb3ac9d8fe7bcd 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -8618,7 +8618,16 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
>> new_cpu = sched_balance_find_dst_cpu(sd, p, cpu, prev_cpu, sd_flag);
>> } else if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU) { /* XXX always ? */
>> /* Fast path */
>> - new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Avoid wakeup on an overutilized CPU.
>> + * If the previous CPU is not overloaded, retain the same for cache locality.
>> + * Otherwise, search for an idle sibling.
>> + */
>> + if (!cpu_overutilized(prev_cpu))
>> + new_cpu = prev_cpu;
>
> IMHO, special conditions like this one are normally coded at the
> beginning of select_idle_sibling().
>
> [...]
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-30 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-17 23:00 Shubhang Kaushik via B4 Relay
2025-10-20 12:36 ` Phil Auld
2025-10-22 16:45 ` Shubhang Kaushik OS
2025-10-22 16:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-10-28 7:29 ` kernel test robot
2025-10-29 4:17 ` kernel test robot
2025-10-30 10:14 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-10-30 16:35 ` Shubhang [this message]
2025-10-31 11:32 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-10-31 16:45 ` Shubhang Kaushik OS
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=d1cbc53d-d4cf-bc5a-6468-89e9a1d86f33@gentwo.org \
--to=sh@gentwo.org \
--cc=Shijie.Huang@amperecomputing.com \
--cc=adam.li@amperecomputing.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--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=shubhang@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=zwang@amperecomputing.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®