linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch v3 05/20] sched: Add hysteresis to switch a task's preferred LLC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <85bff038-6bc8-4643-8a15-89ac435206fd@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 12:17:26 +0530
From: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Vincent Guittot
 <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Libo Chen <libo.chen@...cle.com>, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch v3 05/20] sched: Add hysteresis to switch a task's
 preferred LLC

Hi Tim,

On 18/06/25 23:57, Tim Chen wrote:
> Switching a process's preferred LLC generates lots of task
> migrations across LLCs. To avoid frequent switches
> of home LLC, implement the following policy:
> 
> 1. Require a 2x occ change threshold to switch preferred LLC
> 2. Don't discard preferred LLC for a task
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6a2678f9d44a..7fb2322c5d9e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1175,6 +1175,14 @@ static s64 update_curr_se(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
>  #define EPOCH_PERIOD	(HZ/100)	/* 10 ms */
>  #define EPOCH_OLD	5		/* 50 ms */
>  
> +static int llc_id(int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (cpu < 0)
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	return per_cpu(sd_llc_id, cpu);
> +}
> +
>  void mm_init_sched(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_sched __percpu *_pcpu_sched)
>  {
>  	unsigned long epoch;
> @@ -1299,6 +1307,7 @@ static void task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
>  	struct task_struct *p = current;
>  	struct mm_struct *mm = p->mm;
>  	unsigned long m_a_occ = 0;
> +	unsigned long last_m_a_occ = 0;
>  	int cpu, m_a_cpu = -1;
>  	cpumask_var_t cpus;
>  
> @@ -1337,11 +1346,13 @@ static void task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
>  					     per_cpu(sd_llc_id, i), occ, m_occ, m_cpu, nr);
>  			}
>  
> -			a_occ /= nr;
> +			// a_occ /= nr;

Is the above by mistake?
I think we need to have average only and not the total value as that favors LLCs with
larger size.

Thanks,
Madadi Vineeth Reddy

>  			if (a_occ > m_a_occ) {
>  				m_a_occ = a_occ;
>  				m_a_cpu = m_cpu;
>  			}
> +			if (llc_id(cpu) == llc_id(mm->mm_sched_cpu))
> +				last_m_a_occ = a_occ;
>  
>  			trace_printk("(%d) a_occ: %ld m_a_occ: %ld\n",
>  				     per_cpu(sd_llc_id, cpu), a_occ, m_a_occ);
> @@ -1355,13 +1366,10 @@ static void task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * If the max average cache occupancy is 'small' we don't care.
> -	 */
> -	if (m_a_occ < (NICE_0_LOAD >> EPOCH_OLD))
> -		m_a_cpu = -1;
> -
> -	mm->mm_sched_cpu = m_a_cpu;
> +	if (m_a_occ > (2 * last_m_a_occ)) {
> +		/* avoid the bouncing of mm_sched_cpu */
> +		mm->mm_sched_cpu = m_a_cpu;
> +	}
>  
>  	free_cpumask_var(cpus);
>  }