linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Prefer cache locality for EAS wakeup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fb34c6d2-291e-4b03-bfd8-372a6cd464ba@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:11:33 +0000
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
To: Shubhang Kaushik OS <Shubhang@...amperecomputing.com>,
 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>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@...two.org>, Adam Li
 <adam.li@...erecomputing.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Prefer cache locality for EAS wakeup

On 10/31/25 16:59, Shubhang Kaushik OS wrote:
> Yes, I agree that EAS approach is not suitable in this case as they require a heterogenous CPU topology.
> The issue is that the existing checks are for a completely idle CPU, whereas `cpu_overutilized` implies
> the CPU is busy but not yet overloaded. I ventured into EAS as this `cpu_overutilized` relies on
> `sched_energy_enabled()` being active. The point I wanted to convey is that - we still need a `cpu_busy?`
> check to make use of the cache locality - for SMP systems. Would appreciate some pointers on the same lines..

So the main issue is that with existing code if a CPU is "overloaded" isn't all that well defined.
For EAS we know if !rd->overloaded => all CPUs are !cpu_overutilized(). We could just pick any where
the task still fits (and we do).
For SMP what 'overloaded' will actually mean depends on the rest of the system (or at least domain). 


> Regards,
> Shubhang
> [sip]