Message-ID: <aYZ2fM39jyoOF247@WindFlash>
Date: Fri,  6 Feb 2026 20:56:21 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@...il.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
	Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce QPW for per-cpu operations

On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 11:34:30AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> The problem:
> Some places in the kernel implement a parallel programming strategy
> consisting on local_locks() for most of the work, and some rare remote
> operations are scheduled on target cpu. This keeps cache bouncing low since
> cacheline tends to be mostly local, and avoids the cost of locks in non-RT
> kernels, even though the very few remote operations will be expensive due
> to scheduling overhead.
> 
> On the other hand, for RT workloads this can represent a problem: getting
> an important workload scheduled out to deal with remote requests is
> sure to introduce unexpected deadline misses.
> 
> The idea:
> Currently with PREEMPT_RT=y, local_locks() become per-cpu spinlocks.
> In this case, instead of scheduling work on a remote cpu, it should
> be safe to grab that remote cpu's per-cpu spinlock and run the required
> work locally. That major cost, which is un/locking in every local function,
> already happens in PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> Also, there is no need to worry about extra cache bouncing:
> The cacheline invalidation already happens due to schedule_work_on().
> 
> This will avoid schedule_work_on(), and thus avoid scheduling-out an
> RT workload.
> 

Marcelo, thanks for finishing this series!

> Proposed solution:
> A new interface called Queue PerCPU Work (QPW), which should replace
> Work Queue in the above mentioned use case.
> 
> If PREEMPT_RT=n this interfaces just wraps the current

Are we enabling it by default in PREEMPT_RT=y? If not,

If CONFIG_QPW=n or qpw=0 this interfaces just wraps the current

> local_locks + WorkQueue behavior, so no expected change in runtime.
> 
> If PREEMPT_RT=y, or CONFIG_QPW=y, queue_percpu_work_on(cpu,...) will

Same here

If CONFIG_QPW=y and qpw=1, queue_percpu_work_on(cpu,...) will

> lock that cpu's per-cpu structure and perform work on it locally. 
> This is possible because on functions that can be used for performing
> remote work on remote per-cpu structures, the local_lock (which is already
> a this_cpu spinlock()), will be replaced by a qpw_spinlock(), which
> is able to get the per_cpu spinlock() for the cpu passed as parameter.
> 
> RFC->v1:
> 
> - Introduce CONFIG_QPW and qpw= kernel boot option to enable 
>   remote spinlocking and execution even on !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
>   kernels (Leonardo Bras).
> - Move buffer_head draining to separate workqueue (Marcelo Tosatti).
> - Convert mlock per-CPU page lists to QPW (Marcelo Tosatti).
> - Drop memcontrol convertion (as isolated CPUs are not targets
>   of queue_work_on anymore).
> - Rebase SLUB against Vlastimil's slab/next.
> - Add basic document for QPW (Waiman Long).

A document was a nice touch :)

> 
> 
> The following testcase triggers lru_add_drain_all on an isolated CPU
> (that does sys_write to a file before entering its realtime 
> loop).
> 
> /* 
>  * Simulates a low latency loop program that is interrupted
>  * due to lru_add_drain_all. To trigger lru_add_drain_all, run:
>  *
>  * blockdev --flushbufs /dev/sdX
>  *
>  */ 
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdarg.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <sched.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> 
> int cpu;
> 
> static void *run(void *arg)
> {
> 	pthread_t current_thread;
> 	cpu_set_t cpuset;
> 	int ret, nrloops;
> 	struct sched_param sched_p;
> 	pid_t pid;
> 	int fd;
> 	char buf[] = "xxxxxxxxxxx";
> 
> 	CPU_ZERO(&cpuset);
> 	CPU_SET(cpu, &cpuset);
> 
> 	current_thread = pthread_self();    
> 	ret = pthread_setaffinity_np(current_thread, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpuset);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		perror("pthread_setaffinity_np failed\n");
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 
> 	memset(&sched_p, 0, sizeof(struct sched_param));
> 	sched_p.sched_priority = 1;
> 	pid = gettid();
> 	ret = sched_setscheduler(pid, SCHED_FIFO, &sched_p);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		perror("sched_setscheduler");
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 
> 	fd = open("/tmp/tmpfile", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC);
> 	if (fd == -1) {
> 		perror("open");
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 
> 	ret = write(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
> 	if (ret == -1) {
> 		perror("write");
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 
> 	do { 
> 		nrloops = nrloops+2;
> 		nrloops--;
> 	} while (1);
> }
> 
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>         int fd, ret;
> 	pthread_t thread;
> 	long val;
> 	char *endptr, *str;
> 	struct sched_param sched_p;
> 	pid_t pid;
> 
> 	if (argc != 2) {
> 		printf("usage: %s cpu-nr\n", argv[0]);
> 		printf("where CPU number is the CPU to pin thread to\n");
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 	str = argv[1];
> 	cpu = strtol(str, &endptr, 10);
> 	if (cpu < 0) {
> 		printf("strtol returns %d\n", cpu);
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 	printf("cpunr=%d\n", cpu);
> 
> 	memset(&sched_p, 0, sizeof(struct sched_param));
> 	sched_p.sched_priority = 1;
> 	pid = getpid();
> 	ret = sched_setscheduler(pid, SCHED_FIFO, &sched_p);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		perror("sched_setscheduler");
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 
> 	pthread_create(&thread, NULL, run, NULL);
> 
> 	sleep(5000);
> 
> 	pthread_join(thread, NULL);
> }
> 
> 

Also, having the reproducer in the cover letter was a great idea!

Thanks!
Leo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists