From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jianyong Wu <wujianyong@hygon.cn>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
sshegde@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
yu.c.chen@intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
justin.he@arm.com, zhongyuan@hygon.cn, yingzhiwei@hygon.cn,
huangsj@hygon.cn
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] sched: Extend cache-aware scheduling into topology-aware scheduling
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:42:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260625084227.GS42921@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260625030759.25928-1-wujianyong@hygon.cn>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:07:51AM +0800, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> The current cache-aware scheduling implementation adopts an
> LLC-centric task aggregation model. While effective for workloads
> that fit within a single LLC domain, this design is fundamentally
> limited by a fixed aggregation scope that cannot scale across
> scheduling domains.
>
> This leads to a single structural limitation: the lack of
> topology-scalable task aggregation. When workload size exceeds
> the capacity of an LLC domain, the scheduler cannot extend
> aggregation to higher-level domains, and locality cannot be
> preserved effectively. At the same time, higher-level topology
> information such as NUMA domains cannot be consistently utilized
> for placement decisions.
>
> This patch set addresses this limitation by extending
> cache-aware scheduling into topology-aware task aggregation.
> The aggregation scope becomes hierarchical and can dynamically
> expand or contract across scheduling domains based on workload
> demand.
>
> Task aggregation starts at MC or LLC domains under light load,
> and expands to NUMA and higher-level domains as load increases,
> and contracts when load decreases.
Urgh,... that only really works if the topology has a low branching
factor.
I would much rather see things move towards a mask of cache domains,
rather than any single one, where the number of bits in the mask is
minimal vs the concurrency.
This has already been mentioned a number of times, which seems to
suggest you've not actually been reading along very well :-(
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-25 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-25 3:07 [RFC PATCH 0/8] sched: Extend cache-aware scheduling into topology-aware scheduling Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] sched/topo: Add some llc related helpers Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] sched/fair: Introduce helpers for cross-domain migration decisions Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] sched/fair: Introduce rq affinity gain calculation for migration selection Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] sched/fair: Pick optimal src rq/group using affinity promotion metric Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] sched/fair: Drop prefer_sibling restriction for llc_balance Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] sched/fair: Judge migration eligibility via NUMA-wide Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] sched: Let sched cache take precedence over NUMA balancing Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 3:07 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] sched/debug: Print task preferred LLC for scheduler debugging Jianyong Wu
2026-06-25 8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-06-25 12:12 ` [RFC PATCH 0/8] sched: Extend cache-aware scheduling into topology-aware scheduling Jianyong Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260625084227.GS42921@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=huangsj@hygon.cn \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=justin.he@arm.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wujianyong@hygon.cn \
--cc=yingzhiwei@hygon.cn \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=zhongyuan@hygon.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.