From: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"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>,
Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com>,
"Madadi Vineeth Reddy" <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@outlook.com>,
Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name>,
Tingyin Duan <tingyin.duan@gmail.com>,
Vern Hao <vernhao@tencent.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>, Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@gmail.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 05/28] sched: Add hysteresis to switch a task's preferred LLC
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 12:31:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11b8de67-ce3d-4c07-a5b7-1c8e1f58f71c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250929134447.GM3419281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 9/29/2025 9:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2025 at 01:02:18PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
>> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Switching a process's preferred LLC generates lots of task
>> migrations across LLCs. To avoid frequent switches
>> of home LLC, implement the following policy:
>>
>> 1. Require a 2x occ change threshold to switch preferred LLC
>> 2. Don't discard preferred LLC for a task
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index a7be5c5ecba3..9e3c6f0eb934 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -1175,6 +1175,14 @@ static s64 update_curr_se(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
>> #define EPOCH_PERIOD (HZ/100) /* 10 ms */
>> #define EPOCH_OLD 5 /* 50 ms */
>>
>> +static int llc_id(int cpu)
>> +{
>> + if (cpu < 0)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + return per_cpu(sd_llc_id, cpu);
>> +}
>> +
>> void mm_init_sched(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_sched __percpu *_pcpu_sched)
>> {
>> unsigned long epoch;
>> @@ -1307,6 +1315,7 @@ static void __no_profile task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
>> struct task_struct *p = current;
>> struct mm_struct *mm = p->mm;
>> unsigned long m_a_occ = 0;
>> + unsigned long last_m_a_occ = 0;
>> int cpu, m_a_cpu = -1;
>> cpumask_var_t cpus;
>>
>> @@ -1345,11 +1354,13 @@ static void __no_profile task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
>> per_cpu(sd_llc_id, i), occ, m_occ, m_cpu, nr);
>> }
>>
>> - a_occ /= nr;
>> + // a_occ /= nr;
>
> This seems broken.
>
The original thought was that not dividing the nr might help in
an asymmetric LLC scenario.
If there are 2 threads in the 4-CPU LLC and 3 threads in the
8-CPU LLC, it might be better to choose the one with 3 threads.
But it wouldn't be the case if division is done by the nr.
And the NUMA balancing fault statistic behaves similarly:
it compares the total number of faults per node rather than
the average number of faults per CPU, IIUC.
>> if (a_occ > m_a_occ) {
>> m_a_occ = a_occ;
>> m_a_cpu = m_cpu;
>> }
>> + if (llc_id(cpu) == llc_id(mm->mm_sched_cpu))
>> + last_m_a_occ = a_occ;
>
> Not 'last', 'curr' perhaps?
>
OK.
>>
>> trace_printk("(%d) a_occ: %ld m_a_occ: %ld\n",
>> per_cpu(sd_llc_id, cpu), a_occ, m_a_occ);
>> @@ -1363,13 +1374,10 @@ static void __no_profile task_cache_work(struct callback_head *work)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - /*
>> - * If the max average cache occupancy is 'small' we don't care.
>> - */
>> - if (m_a_occ < (NICE_0_LOAD >> EPOCH_OLD))
>> - m_a_cpu = -1;
>> -
>> - mm->mm_sched_cpu = m_a_cpu;
>> + if (m_a_occ > (2 * last_m_a_occ)) {
>> + /* avoid the bouncing of mm_sched_cpu */
>> + mm->mm_sched_cpu = m_a_cpu;
>> + }
>
>
> The whole double thing doesn't seem right either. That means that
> anything over .5 will never be able to change, even when confronted with
> say a .8.
>
> Also, while this is a threshold, this is not in fact hysteresis.
>
I agree 2X might be too aggressive. The threshold here was intended
to avoid switching to a new mm_sched_cpu too quickly, but it is not
intended to address the back-and-forth bouncing issue that hysteresis
would resolve. Instead, the task migration bouncing issue is solved
in patch 7/28 via a hysteresis.
Maybe the comment above:
/* avoid the bouncing of mm_sched_cpu */
should be changed to:
/* avoid switching to mm_sched_cpu too fast */
I'll investigate an imbalance_pct value that is less aggressive than 2X.
thanks,
Chenyu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-30 4:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-09 4:57 [RFC PATCH v4 00/28] Cache aware load-balancing Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:00 ` [RFC PATCH v4 01/28] sched: " Chen Yu
2025-08-12 1:30 ` kernel test robot
2025-08-12 3:26 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-08-09 5:01 ` [RFC PATCH v4 02/28] sched: Several fixes for cache aware scheduling Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:01 ` [RFC PATCH v4 03/28] sched: Avoid task migration within its preferred LLC Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH v4 04/28] sched: Avoid calculating the cpumask if the system is overloaded Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH v4 05/28] sched: Add hysteresis to switch a task's preferred LLC Chen Yu
2025-09-29 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30 4:31 ` Chen, Yu C [this message]
2025-08-09 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH v4 06/28] sched: Save the per LLC utilization for better cache aware scheduling Chen Yu
2025-09-29 14:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30 4:34 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-08-09 5:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 07/28] sched: Add helper function to decide whether to allow " Chen Yu
2025-10-01 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-02 11:31 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-10-02 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-02 12:51 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-10-02 17:46 ` Tim Chen
2025-08-09 5:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 08/28] sched: Set up LLC indexing Chen Yu
2025-09-26 6:14 ` Adam Li
2025-09-26 13:51 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-09-29 10:43 ` Adam Li
2025-09-30 2:54 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-08-09 5:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 09/28] sched: Introduce task preferred LLC field Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:04 ` [RFC PATCH v4 10/28] sched: Calculate the number of tasks that have LLC preference on a runqueue Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:04 ` [RFC PATCH v4 11/28] sched: Introduce per runqueue task LLC preference counter Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:04 ` [RFC PATCH v4 12/28] sched: Calculate the total number of preferred LLC tasks during load balance Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 13/28] sched: Tag the sched group as llc_balance if it has tasks prefer other LLC Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:05 ` [RFC PATCH v4 14/28] sched: Introduce update_llc_busiest() to deal with groups having preferred LLC tasks Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:06 ` [RFC PATCH v4 15/28] sched: Introduce a new migration_type to track the preferred LLC load balance Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:06 ` [RFC PATCH v4 16/28] sched: Consider LLC locality for active balance Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:06 ` [RFC PATCH v4 17/28] sched: Consider LLC preference when picking tasks from busiest queue Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:07 ` [RFC PATCH v4 18/28] sched: Do not migrate task if it is moving out of its preferred LLC Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:07 ` [RFC PATCH v4 19/28] sched: Introduce SCHED_CACHE_LB to control cache aware load balance Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:07 ` [RFC PATCH v4 20/28] sched: Introduce SCHED_CACHE_WAKE to control LLC aggregation on wake up Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:07 ` [RFC PATCH v4 21/28] sched: Introduce a static key to enable cache aware only for multi LLCs Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:07 ` [RFC PATCH v4 22/28] sched: Turn EPOCH_PERIOD and EPOCH_OLD into tunnable debugfs Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:08 ` [RFC PATCH v4 23/28] sched: Scan a task's preferred node for preferred LLC Chen Yu
2025-08-12 1:59 ` kernel test robot
2025-08-12 3:36 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-08-09 5:08 ` [RFC PATCH v4 24/28] sched: Record average number of runninhg tasks per process Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:08 ` [RFC PATCH v4 25/28] sched: Skip cache aware scheduling if the process has many active threads Chen Yu
2025-09-02 3:52 ` Tingyin Duan
2025-09-02 5:16 ` Tingyin Duan
2025-09-02 6:14 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-09-02 7:56 ` Duan Tingyin
2025-08-09 5:08 ` [RFC PATCH v4 26/28] sched: Do not enable cache aware scheduling for process with large RSS Chen Yu
2025-09-26 8:48 ` Adam Li
2025-09-26 14:30 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-08-09 5:09 ` [RFC PATCH v4 27/28] sched: Allow the user space to tune the scale factor for RSS comparison Chen Yu
2025-08-09 5:09 ` [RFC PATCH v4 28/28] sched: Add ftrace to track cache aware load balance and hottest CPU changes Chen Yu
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=11b8de67-ce3d-4c07-a5b7-1c8e1f58f71c@intel.com \
--to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=cyy@cyyself.name \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=jianyong.wu@outlook.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=libo.chen@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tingyin.duan@gmail.com \
--cc=vernhao@tencent.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yu.chen.surf@gmail.com \
--cc=zhao1.liu@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox