From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99423192590 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 23:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775775640; cv=none; b=Tm+Yg3eNBg8JuAouPlVmEDxVjdsYHRqGFQOYx1qZaOm0wis7ge8EPe5s7OLphOxWTTSmH99S0Sg2P/E+WSw9oIqyiC1OAffMtIQMbCqY8aeXzJ1syW+Cq2rveCQ5xszNKXQyltIdZPzygwdjsSQm1NKA7AJHg+Nj19zp6Umqsks= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775775640; c=relaxed/simple; bh=woZfiYiKiTfhnNRVP1VmsGEh/mozRg/SLFuR2AiVbxU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PfDU7UsQOe8HGfoVby2/JuWrswJ5ZVAmgs49Eh8hijDHYkY6e9My7QqCKu8uxO21Mbs7gW4GUlH73izTmgsyTQ2tHVNl5xVNDJi5zXkm9QIbEZoNKXEii7+S4m7t8Tm/c7YoEurisZZ8lLSsEChOdLKFDuE1nQn2hQKcwYcu2sU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=QEiggTpe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="QEiggTpe" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=+1OD1OHjO3F3EicS22OQJ9UZwzuQYvj4594nPouI6No=; b=QEiggTpe+kpo3RofVsaHA0+XUT yfuC5rOvCSs2oHH4Lb5Oc7vfkO3AnRo6AmA8y9UduroEzUvn4qsjGYWeFX/LszjuBZxFer6Wf3t/M 05LaZU5CyKzDf/UJLVUAgc8zPMefZXF1v5vHHIca2FSKuoS3T0Ct+usofxYcuguFCWAD7m+DWdU1G e94OD8r/qDdTRZqi3pkjYU9dPclt5uVg7tRlj8pMlnWkNEScR6766H4JTbSHgcPJKenvEcpjCv4kz GrWe35m3dqiPdbvICMRgDracC5DXH52QbOlMtjP9FhMd8QwW5vQE/LFBFQsk3DtRrQ7vYrVtdIXJ/ x8t/Rjeg==; Received: from 2001-1c00-8d85-4b00-266e-96ff-fe07-7dcc.cable.dynamic.v6.ziggo.nl ([2001:1c00:8d85:4b00:266e:96ff:fe07:7dcc] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wAyM1-0000000CXuV-3ovQ; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 23:00:06 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4B75F300583; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 01:00:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 01:00:04 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tim Chen Cc: Ingo Molnar , K Prateek Nayak , "Gautham R . Shenoy" , Vincent Guittot , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , Madadi Vineeth Reddy , Hillf Danton , Shrikanth Hegde , Jianyong Wu , Yangyu Chen , Tingyin Duan , Vern Hao , Vern Hao , Len Brown , Aubrey Li , Zhao Liu , Chen Yu , Chen Yu , Adam Li , Aaron Lu , Tim Chen , Josh Don , Gavin Guo , Qais Yousef , Libo Chen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch v4 01/22] sched/cache: Introduce infrastructure for cache-aware load balancing Message-ID: <20260409230004.GV2872@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <6269a53221b9439b9ca00d18a9d1946fb64d8cff.1775065312.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> <20260409124110.GA3126523@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <71b4ddab042b805a225eef92b0a9404b20aa2b98.camel@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <71b4ddab042b805a225eef92b0a9404b20aa2b98.camel@linux.intel.com> On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 12:21:58PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > > > + get_nr_threads(p) <= 1) { > > > > And this, I just noticed this, why are we excluding tasks with one > > thread? The comment just states we are (doh), but utterly fails to > > explain why. > > The thought was that for a single thread, we will tend to place it > in same LLC as it was previously running with cache hot. Incurring > the added cost of tracking its residency in LLC is uneeded. Not sure -- the moment it gets migrated away, it will stay away. There is no force to pull it back, while with cache aware it will try and come back for a short while -- until it's build an occupancy on the new llc. Anyway, if you want to do this, it needs to be a separate patch.