All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	maddy@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	vschneid@redhat.com, iii@linux.ibm.com, huschle@linux.ibm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	vineeth@bitbyteword.org, jgross@suse.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	seanjc@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] sched: Static key to check paravirt cpu push
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:53:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMIrgI9J4fuXntRz@yury> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250910174210.1969750-4-sshegde@linux.ibm.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 11:12:03PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> CPUs are marked paravirt when there is contention for underlying
> physical CPU.
> 
> The push mechanism and check for paravirt CPUs are in sched tick
> and wakeup. It should be close to no-op when there is no need for it.
> Achieve that using static key.
> 
> Architecture needs to enable this key when it decides there are
> paravirt CPUs. Disable it when there are no paravirt CPUs.

Testing a bit is quite close to a no-op, isn't it? Have you measured
the performance impact that would advocate the static key? Please
share some numbers then. I believe I asked you about it on the previous
round.

> Signed-off-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c  |  1 +
>  kernel/sched/sched.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 0f1e36bb5779..b8a84e4691c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -10967,4 +10967,5 @@ void sched_enq_and_set_task(struct sched_enq_and_set_ctx *ctx)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>  struct cpumask __cpu_paravirt_mask __read_mostly;
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpu_paravirt_mask);
> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(cpu_paravirt_push_tasks);
>  #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index b5367c514c14..8f9991453d36 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -3880,4 +3880,21 @@ void sched_enq_and_set_task(struct sched_enq_and_set_ctx *ctx);
>  
>  #include "ext.h"
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(cpu_paravirt_push_tasks);
> +
> +static inline bool is_cpu_paravirt(int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (static_branch_unlikely(&cpu_paravirt_push_tasks))
> +		return cpu_paravirt(cpu);
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

So is_cpu_paravirt and cpu_paravirt are exactly the same in terms of
functionality. If you really believe that static branch benefits the
performance, it should go straight to the cpu_paravirt().

> +#else	/* !CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
> +static inline bool is_cpu_paravirt(int cpu)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +#endif	/* !CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
> +
>  #endif /* _KERNEL_SCHED_SCHED_H */
> -- 
> 2.47.3


  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-11  1:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-10 17:42 [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/10] sched/docs: Document cpu_paravirt_mask and Paravirt CPU concept Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/10] cpumask: Introduce cpu_paravirt_mask Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] sched: Static key to check paravirt cpu push Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-11  1:53   ` Yury Norov [this message]
2025-09-11 14:37     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-11 15:29       ` Yury Norov
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/10] sched/core: Dont allow to use CPU marked as paravirt Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-11  5:16   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-11 14:44     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/10] sched/fair: Don't consider paravirt CPUs for wakeup and load balance Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-11  5:23   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-11 15:56     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-11 16:55       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-08 12:04     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/10] sched/rt: Don't select paravirt CPU for wakeup and push/pull rt task Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/10] sched/core: Push current task from paravirt CPU Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-11  5:40   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-11 16:52     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-11 17:06       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-12  5:22         ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-12  8:48           ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-12 12:49             ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-10  4:54     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/10] sysfs: Add paravirt CPU file Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/10] powerpc: Add debug file for set/unset paravirt CPUs Shrikanth Hegde
2025-09-10 17:42 ` [HELPER PATCH] sysfs: Provide write method for paravirt Shrikanth Hegde
2025-10-20 14:32 ` [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption Sean Christopherson
2025-10-20 15:05   ` Paolo Bonzini
2025-10-23  4:03     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-10-21  6:10   ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-10-22 18:46     ` Sean Christopherson
2025-10-30 17:43       ` 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=aMIrgI9J4fuXntRz@yury \
    --to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=huschle@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.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.