From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
maddy@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
peterz@infradead.org
Cc: christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ritesh.list@gmail.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
yu.c.chen@intel.com, vineethr@linux.ibm.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, srikar@linux.ibm.com,
npiggin@gmail.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:58:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4a71f654cdc03973f309754a2f61810b4547a471.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261023131646.2907938-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, 2026-10-23 at 18:46 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> Provide an option for users to enable cache aware scheduling on powerpc
> via a command line parameter.
>
> More details of the problem and context is in cover-letter of v1.
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261012102037.2477378-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com/
>
> v1->v2:
> - Move to kernel parameters from debugfs. This helps to keep
> llc_id consistent which doesn't change across sched domain
> rebuilds. (Tim Chen)
> - Update arch_llc_mask to reflect the override (Tim Chen)
> - Limit only to mc, pkg (Srikar Dronamraju)
>
> Notes:
>
> - A selftest for the functional validation of cache aware scheduling
> is a good idea as we discussed in v1. It is a significant change on
> its own and likely takes time. I am thinking it might be good idea to
> revisit selftests for scheduler in general. (We have very few).
> Maybe worth a discussion in coming OSPM.
>
> - I am on parental leave. This version is pretty much what I had last week
> and I haven't gotten any chance to update since. just sending it out.
> Sorry if I have missed to address any comments.
> Please expect delays in my response.
Thanks for sending this while on leave, and congratulations!
The updated approach with boot parameters looks good to me.
Some minor points:
1. llc_bytes. As Chen Yu noted, get_effective_llc_bytes() returns 0
on powerpc because the generic cacheinfo is not populated. With
NUMA balancing on and the default llc_aggr_tolerance, any process
with a footprint then fails exceed_llc_capacity(), so cache aware
scheduling still does not engage.
2. Bisection. Patch 2 moves SD_SHARE_LLC to MC/PKG, but
arch_llc_mask() only follows in patch 3, so a kernel at patch 2
booted with llc_override=mc has sd_llc at MC with per-L2 llc ids,
causing mismatch. It may be better to squash 2 and 3.
3. llc_override is only written at boot. Making it
static int llc_override __ro_after_init;
and then you don't have to worry about READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE
to it as Chen Yu pointed out.
Tim
>
> Shrikanth Hegde (4):
> powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter
> powerpc/topology: Update mc/pkg flags based on llc_override
> powerpc/topology: update arch_llc_mask based llc_override
> Documentation/powerpc: Add details about llc_override
>
> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 15 ++++
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h | 8 +--
> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-23 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-23 13:16 [PATCH v2 0/4] powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 15:42 ` Chen Yu
2026-11-10 17:28 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] powerpc/topology: Update mc/pkg flags based on llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc/topology: Update arch_llc_mask based llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 13:16 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] Documentation/powerpc: Add details about llc_override Shrikanth Hegde
2026-10-23 17:58 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2026-11-10 17:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] powerpc/topology: Introduce llc_override kernel parameter Shrikanth Hegde
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=4a71f654cdc03973f309754a2f61810b4547a471.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/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.