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

Message-ID: <42541486-45ef-484a-a409-779dcb8f7b29@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2025 12:42:18 +0530
From: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Shubhang Kaushik <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,
        Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Prefer cache locality for EAS wakeup

Hi Shubhang,

On 31/10/25 00:49, Shubhang Kaushik wrote:
> When Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) is enabled, a task waking up on a
> sibling CPU might migrate away from its previous CPU even if that CPU
> is not overutilized. This sacrifices cache locality and introduces
> unnecessary migration overhead.
> 
> This patch refines the wakeup heuristic in `select_idle_sibling()`. If
> EAS is active and the task's previous CPU (`prev`) is not overutilized,
> the scheduler will prioritize waking the task on `prev`, avoiding an
> unneeded migration and preserving cache-hotness.
> 
> ---
> v2:
> - Addressed reviewer comments to handle this special condition
>   within the selection logic, prioritizing the
>   previous CPU if not overutilized for EAS.
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251017-b4-sched-cfs-refactor-propagate-v1-1-1eb0dc5b19b3@os.amperecomputing.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shubhang Kaushik <shubhang@...amperecomputing.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 25970dbbb27959bc130d288d5f80677f75f8db8b..ac94463627778f09522fb5420f67b903a694ad4d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7847,9 +7847,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>  	    asym_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, target))
>  		return target;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * If the previous CPU is cache affine and idle, don't be stupid:
> -	 */
> +	/* Reschedule on an idle, cache-sharing sibling to preserve affinity: */
>  	if (prev != target && cpus_share_cache(prev, target) &&
>  	    (available_idle_cpu(prev) || sched_idle_cpu(prev)) &&
>  	    asym_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, prev)) {
> @@ -7861,6 +7859,14 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>  		prev_aff = prev;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If the previous CPU is not overutilized, prefer it for cache locality.
> +	 * This prevents migration away from a cache-hot CPU that can still
> +	 * handle the task without causing an overload.
> +	 */
> +	if (sched_energy_enabled() && !cpu_overutilized(prev))
> +		return prev;
> +

The above !cpu_overutilized(prev) is placed before recent_used_cpu idle check.
This means if prev is busy (but not overutilized) and recent_used_cpu is completely
idle, the task returns to prev and misses the idle opportunity.

Is cache locality prioritized even over idle CPU availability?
Are there measurements showing this trade-off is worthwhile for real workloads?

Thank you,
Madadi Vineeth Reddy

>  	/*
>  	 * Allow a per-cpu kthread to stack with the wakee if the
>  	 * kworker thread and the tasks previous CPUs are the same.
> 
> ---
> base-commit: e53642b87a4f4b03a8d7e5f8507fc3cd0c595ea6
> change-id: 20251030-b4-follow-up-ff03b4533a2d
> 
> Best regards,