linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Cc: 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, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, yury.norov@gmail.com, maddy@linux.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/10] sched/fair: Don't consider paravirt CPUs for wakeup and load balance
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 17:34:45 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44d1a4a3-da2d-4cee-b947-a83023a4ceaa@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d0aa1a34-2097-405c-b431-907fd973ad96@amd.com>



On 9/11/25 10:53 AM, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Shrikanth,
> 
> On 9/10/2025 11:12 PM, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>> @@ -8563,7 +8563,7 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
>>   		if (!is_rd_overutilized(this_rq()->rd)) {
>>   			new_cpu = find_energy_efficient_cpu(p, prev_cpu);
>>   			if (new_cpu >= 0)
>> -				return new_cpu;
>> +				goto check_new_cpu;
> 
> Should this fallback to the overutilized path if the most energy
> efficient CPU is found to be paravirtualized or should
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() be made aware of it?


While thinking about this, are there any such system which has vCPUs and
overcommits and still has energy model backing it?

Highly unlikely. So, I am planning to put a warning there and see if any
such usage exists there.

> 
>>   			new_cpu = prev_cpu;
>>   		}
>>   
>> @@ -8605,7 +8605,12 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
>>   	}
>>   	rcu_read_unlock();
>>   
>> -	return new_cpu;
>> +	/* If newly found or prev_cpu is a paravirt cpu, use current cpu */
>> +check_new_cpu:
>> +	if (is_cpu_paravirt(new_cpu))
>> +		return cpu;
>> +	else
> 
> nit. redundant else.
> 
>> +		return new_cpu;
>>   }
>>   
>>   /*
>> @@ -11734,6 +11739,12 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>>   
>>   	cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), cpu_active_mask);
>>   
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>> +	/* Don't spread load to paravirt CPUs */
>> +	if (static_branch_unlikely(&cpu_paravirt_push_tasks))
>> +		cpumask_andnot(cpus, cpus, cpu_paravirt_mask);
>> +#endif
> 
> Can something similar be also be done in select_idle_sibling() and
> sched_balance_find_dst_cpu() for wakeup path?
> 

We have this pattern in select_task_rq_fair

cpu = smp_processor_id();
new_cpu = prev_cpu;

task is waking up after a while, so likely prev_cpu is marked as paravirt
and in such cases we should return current cpu. if current cpu is paravirt(unlikely),
and prev_cpu is also paravirt, then should return current cpu.
In next sched tick it will be pushed out.

select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu); - (new_cpu will remain prev_cpu if wake_affine doesn't change it)
Will have to change the prototype to send current cpu as well.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-11-08 12:05 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
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 [this message]
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=44d1a4a3-da2d-4cee-b947-a83023a4ceaa@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=sshegde@linux.ibm.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=kprateek.nayak@amd.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=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=yury.norov@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).