From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
peterz@infradead.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, segall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
rafael@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
kobak@nvidia.com, fabecassis@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][RFT][PATCH 0/3] arm64: Enable asympacking for minor CPPC asymmetry
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 10:15:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <acT5RjFefzQrkxHW@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDmnnGONJhrQPNh2rhe3-KvMkX1nW8-JYN+otNLQYSU-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 09:20:45AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 09:12, Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 06:13:11PM +0000, Christian Loehle wrote:
> > ...
> > > RFT:
> > > Andrea, please give this a try. This should perform better in particular
> > > for single-threaded workloads and workloads that do not utilize all
> > > cores (all the time anyway).
> > > Capacity-aware scheduling wakeup works very different to the SMP path
> > > used now, some workloads will benefit, some regress, it would be nice
> > > to get some test results for these.
> > > We already discussed DCPerf MediaWiki seems to benefit from
> > > capacity-aware scheduling wakeup behavior, but others (most?) should
> > > benefit from this series.
> > >
> > > I don't know if we can also be clever about ordering amongst SMT siblings.
> > > That would be dependent on the uarch and I don't have a platform to
> > > experiment with this though, so consider this series orthogonal to the
> > > idle-core SMT considerations.
> > > On platforms with SMT though asympacking makes a lot more sense than
> > > capacity-aware scheduling, because arguing about capacity without
> > > considering utilization of the sibling(s) (and the resulting potential
> > > 'stolen' capacity we perceive) isn't theoretically sound.
> >
> > I did some early testing with this patch set. On Vera I'm getting much
> > better performance that SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY of course (~1.5x avg speedup),
> > mostly because we avoid using both SMT siblings. It's still not the same
> > improvement that I get equalizing the capacity using the 5% threshold
> > (~1.8x speedup).
>
> IIRC the tests that you shared in your patch, you get an additonal
> improvement when adding some SMT awarness to SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY
> compared to equalizing the capacity
Yes, adding SMT awareness to SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY is still the apparoach
that gives me the best performance so far on Vera (~1.9x avg speedup),
among all those that I've tested.
I'll post the updated patch set that I'm using, so we can also elaborate
more on that approach as well.
Thanks,
-Andrea
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-26 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-25 18:13 [RFC][RFT][PATCH 0/3] arm64: Enable asympacking for minor CPPC asymmetry Christian Loehle
2026-03-25 18:13 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched/topology: Introduce arch hooks for asympacking Christian Loehle
2026-03-26 13:23 ` kernel test robot
2026-03-26 15:26 ` kernel test robot
2026-03-26 16:40 ` kernel test robot
2026-03-25 18:13 ` [PATCH 2/3] arch_topology: Export CPPC-based asympacking prios Christian Loehle
2026-03-25 18:13 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64/sched: Enable CPPC-based asympacking Christian Loehle
2026-03-26 15:47 ` kernel test robot
2026-03-26 15:47 ` kernel test robot
2026-03-27 15:44 ` Valentin Schneider
2026-03-26 7:53 ` [RFC][RFT][PATCH 0/3] arm64: Enable asympacking for minor CPPC asymmetry Vincent Guittot
2026-03-26 8:16 ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-26 8:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-26 9:24 ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-26 13:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-26 13:45 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-26 15:55 ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-26 16:00 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-27 9:53 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-26 8:20 ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-26 8:11 ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-26 8:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-26 9:15 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
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=acT5RjFefzQrkxHW@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.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=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=segall@google.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox