From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbirs@nvidia.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Koba Ko <kobak@nvidia.com>,
Felix Abecassis <fabecassis@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: SMT-aware asymmetric CPU capacity
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 23:50:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <achbIaTOR9V5LW2F@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a3bce886-b4bb-4f5e-af04-930934fef50d@nvidia.com>
Hi Balbir,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 12:03:19AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 3/27/26 02:02, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > This series attempts to improve SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY scheduling by
> > introducing SMT awareness.
> >
> > = Problem =
> >
> > Nominal per-logical-CPU capacity can overstate usable compute when an SMT
> > sibling is busy, because the physical core doesn't deliver its full nominal
> > capacity. So, several SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY paths may pick high capacity CPUs
> > that are not actually good destinations.
> >
> > = Proposed Solution =
> >
> > This patch set aligns those paths with a simple rule already used
> > elsewhere: when SMT is active, prefer fully idle cores and avoid treating
> > partially idle SMT siblings as full-capacity targets where that would
> > mislead load balance.
>
> In kernel/sched/topology.c
>
> /* Don't attempt to spread across CPUs of different capacities. */
> if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY) && sd->child)
> sd->child->flags &= ~SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
>
> Should handle the selection, but I guess this does not work for SMT level sd's?
IIUC, SD_PREFER_SIBLING steers load balance toward sibling_imbalance()
(spread runnables across child/sibling domains), it doesn't encode the
fully-idle core first logic. In practice it doesn't give us SMT-aware
destination choice when a sibling is busy and this series is trying to
cover that gap in the palcement path.
BTW, on Vera the hierarchy is SMT -> MC -> NUMA:
root@localhost:~# grep . /sys/kernel/debug/sched/domains/cpu0/domain*/flags
/sys/kernel/debug/sched/domains/cpu0/domain0/flags:SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE SD_BALANCE_EXEC SD_BALANCE_FORK SD_WAKE_AFFINE SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY SD_SHARE_LLC SD_PREFER_SIBLING
/sys/kernel/debug/sched/domains/cpu0/domain1/flags:SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE SD_BALANCE_EXEC SD_BALANCE_FORK SD_WAKE_AFFINE SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY SD_SHARE_LLC
/sys/kernel/debug/sched/domains/cpu0/domain2/flags:SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL SD_SERIALIZE SD_NUMA
And domain1/groups_flags (child / SMT flags on the sched groups used at the
MC level) still has SD_PREFER_SIBLING together with SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY.
root@localhost:~# cat /sys/kernel/debug/sched/domains/cpu0/domain1/groups_flags
SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE SD_BALANCE_EXEC SD_BALANCE_FORK SD_WAKE_AFFINE SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY SD_SHARE_LLC SD_PREFER_SIBLING
So, prefer-sibling is still in play for SMT (including via MC
groups_flags). On machines where asymmetry attaches immediately above SMT,
topology may strip that flag and reduce this branch of behavior, but
explicit SMT-aware placement still matters.
> >
> > Patch set summary:
> >
> > - [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Prefer fully-idle SMT cores in asym-capacity idle selection
> >
> > Prefer fully-idle SMT cores in asym-capacity idle selection. In the
> > wakeup fast path, extend select_idle_capacity() / asym_fits_cpu() so
> > idle selection can prefer CPUs on fully idle cores, with a safe fallback.
> >
> > - [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Reject misfit pulls onto busy SMT siblings on asym-capacity
> >
> > Reject misfit pulls onto busy SMT siblings on SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY.
> > Provided for consistency with PATCH 1/4.
> >
> > - [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Enable EAS with SMT on SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY systems
> >
> > Enable EAS with SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY and SMT. Also provided for
> > consistency with PATCH 1/4. I've also tested with/without
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_energy_aware enabled (same platform) and haven't
> > noticed any regression.
> >
> > - [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Prefer fully-idle SMT core for NOHZ idle load balancer
> >
> > When choosing the housekeeping CPU that runs the idle load balancer,
> > prefer an idle CPU on a fully idle core so migrated work lands where
> > effective capacity is available.
> >
> > The change is still consistent with the same "avoid CPUs with busy
> > sibling" logic and it shows some benefits on Vera, but could have
> > negative impact on other systems, I'm including it for completeness
> > (feedback is appreciated).
> >
> > This patch set has been tested on the new NVIDIA Vera Rubin platform, where
> > SMT is enabled and the firmware exposes small frequency variations (+/-~5%)
> > as differences in CPU capacity, resulting in SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY being set.
> >
>
> Are you referring to nominal_freq?
>
Correct.
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-28 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-26 15:02 [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: SMT-aware asymmetric CPU capacity Andrea Righi
2026-03-26 15:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Prefer fully-idle SMT cores in asym-capacity idle selection Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 8:09 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-27 9:46 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 10:44 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-03-27 10:58 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 11:14 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-03-27 16:39 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-30 10:17 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-03-30 13:07 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-30 13:22 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-30 13:46 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-26 15:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Reject misfit pulls onto busy SMT siblings on asym-capacity Andrea Righi
2026-03-26 15:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Enable EAS with SMT on SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY systems Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 8:09 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-27 9:45 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-26 15:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Prefer fully-idle SMT core for NOHZ idle load balancer Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 8:45 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-27 9:44 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 11:34 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-03-27 20:36 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 22:45 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-30 17:29 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 13:44 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-03-26 16:33 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: SMT-aware asymmetric CPU capacity Christian Loehle
2026-03-27 6:52 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 16:31 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-03-27 17:08 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-28 6:51 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-03-28 13:03 ` Balbir Singh
2026-03-28 22:50 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-03-29 21:36 ` Balbir Singh
2026-03-30 22:30 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-03-31 9:04 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-01 11:57 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-04-01 12:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-04-01 12:42 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-01 13:12 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-03 11:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-04-03 14:45 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-03 20:44 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-07 11:50 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-04-07 19:16 ` Andrea Righi
2026-04-03 11:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann
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=achbIaTOR9V5LW2F@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=balbirs@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=fabecassis@nvidia.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kobak@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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.