| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <61cc2b92-1b5a-4af5-9d88-96097c3b0619@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:32:52 +0800
From: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Vern Hao <haoxing990@...il.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>, Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>, "Hillf
Danton" <hdanton@...a.com>, Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Jianyong Wu" <jianyong.wu@...look.com>, Yangyu Chen <cyy@...self.name>,
Tingyin Duan <tingyin.duan@...il.com>, Vern Hao <vernhao@...cent.com>, Len
Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, Zhao Liu
<zhao1.liu@...el.com>, Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>, Adam Li
<adamli@...amperecomputing.com>, Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>, Tim Chen
<tim.c.chen@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tim Chen
<tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "K
Prateek Nayak" <kprateek.nayak@....com>, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/23] sched/cache: Avoid cache-aware scheduling for
memory-heavy processes
On 12/18/2025 11:59 AM, Vern Hao wrote:
>
> On 2025/12/4 07:07, Tim Chen wrote:
>> From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
>>
>> Prateek and Tingyin reported that memory-intensive workloads (such as
>> stream) can saturate memory bandwidth and caches on the preferred LLC
>> when sched_cache aggregates too many threads.
>>
>> To mitigate this, estimate a process's memory footprint by comparing
>> its RSS (anonymous and shared pages) to the size of the LLC. If RSS
>> exceeds the LLC size, skip cache-aware scheduling.
> Restricting RSS prevents many applications from benefiting from this
> optimization. I believe this restriction should be lifted.
> For memory-
> intensive workloads, the optimization may simply yield no gains, but it
> certainly shouldn't make performance worse. We need to further refine
> this logic.
Memory-intensive workloads may trigger performance regressions when
memory bandwidth(from L3 cache to memory controller) is saturated due
to task aggregation on single LLC. We have seen this issue in stream
benchmark runs in previous version.
Patch 23 introduces a debugfs knob llc_aggr_tolerance that lets userspace
tune the scale factor. This allows memory-intensive workloads to perform
task aggregation when their footprint is small and the administrator
considers
it safe. As you noted in another patch, fine-grained control would improve
flexibility—and this can be addressed in future iterations.
>> Note that RSS is only an approximation of the memory footprint.
>> By default, the comparison is strict, but a later patch will allow
>> users to provide a hint to adjust this threshold.
>>
>> According to the test from Adam, some systems do not have shared L3
>> but with shared L2 as clusters. In this case, the L2 becomes the LLC[1].
>>
>> Link[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/3cb6ebc7-a2fd-42b3-8739-
>> b00e28a09cb6@...amperecomputing.com/
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>> v1->v2: Assigned curr_cpu in task_cache_work() before checking
>> exceed_llc_capacity(mm, curr_cpu) to avoid out-of-bound
>> access.(lkp/0day)
>>
>> include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 21 ++++++++++-------
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
>> index c8f4f0a0b874..82d0d59ca0e1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
>> @@ -113,18 +113,11 @@ int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
>> const struct attribute_group *cache_get_priv_group(struct cacheinfo
>> *this_leaf);
>> -/*
>> - * Get the cacheinfo structure for the cache associated with @cpu at
>> - * level @level.
>> - * cpuhp lock must be held.
>> - */
>> -static inline struct cacheinfo *get_cpu_cacheinfo_level(int cpu, int
>> level)
>> +static inline struct cacheinfo *_get_cpu_cacheinfo_level(int cpu, int
>> level)
>> {
>> struct cpu_cacheinfo *ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
>> int i;
>> - lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>> -
>> for (i = 0; i < ci->num_leaves; i++) {
>> if (ci->info_list[i].level == level) {
>> if (ci->info_list[i].attributes & CACHE_ID)
>> @@ -136,6 +129,18 @@ static inline struct cacheinfo
>> *get_cpu_cacheinfo_level(int cpu, int level)
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> +/*
>> + * Get the cacheinfo structure for the cache associated with @cpu at
>> + * level @level.
>> + * cpuhp lock must be held.
>> + */
>> +static inline struct cacheinfo *get_cpu_cacheinfo_level(int cpu, int
>> level)
>> +{
>> + lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>> +
>> + return _get_cpu_cacheinfo_level(cpu, level);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Get the id of the cache associated with @cpu at level @level.
>> * cpuhp lock must be held.
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 6afa3f9a4e9b..424ec601cfdf 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -1223,6 +1223,38 @@ static int llc_id(int cpu)
>> return llc;
>> }
>> +static bool exceed_llc_capacity(struct mm_struct *mm, int cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct cacheinfo *ci;
>> + unsigned long rss;
>> + unsigned int llc;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * get_cpu_cacheinfo_level() can not be used
>> + * because it requires the cpu_hotplug_lock
>> + * to be held. Use _get_cpu_cacheinfo_level()
>> + * directly because the 'cpu' can not be
>> + * offlined at the moment.
>> + */
>> + ci = _get_cpu_cacheinfo_level(cpu, 3);
>> + if (!ci) {
>> + /*
>> + * On system without L3 but with shared L2,
>> + * L2 becomes the LLC.
>> + */
>> + ci = _get_cpu_cacheinfo_level(cpu, 2);
>> + if (!ci)
>> + return true;
>> + }
> Is there must call it one by one for get llc size? a static variable
> instead in building sched domain?
I suppose you suggested introducing a per-CPU variable, like
percpu(sd_llc_bytes, cpu),
or something similar to struct cpuinfo_x86.x86_cache_size. I am not sure
if the community
would endorse introducing this variable, given that sched_cache would be
its only user.
We can leave this as an open question.
thanks,
Chenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists