[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251020123648.GA851830@pauld.westford.csb>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:36:48 -0400
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: shubhang@...amperecomputing.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
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>,
Shubhang Kaushik <sh@...two.org>,
Shijie Huang <Shijie.Huang@...erecomputing.com>,
Frank Wang <zwang@...erecomputing.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
Adam Li <adam.li@...erecomputing.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prefer cache-hot prev_cpu for wakeup
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 04:00:44PM -0700 Shubhang Kaushik via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Shubhang Kaushik <shubhang@...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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shubhang Kaushik <shubhang@...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;
> + else
> + new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu);
Won't this be checking if the cpu is overusitilzed without the wakee. It
might well be overutilized once the wakee is placed there.
I suspect this will hurt some workloads. Do you have numbers to share?
Cheers,
Phil
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
>
> ---
> base-commit: 9b332cece987ee1790b2ed4c989e28162fa47860
> change-id: 20251017-b4-sched-cfs-refactor-propagate-2c4a820998a4
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Shubhang Kaushik <shubhang@...amperecomputing.com>
>
>
>
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists