From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] sched/topology: Switch to assigning "sd->shared" from s_data
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 10:50:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47c5f6eb-1622-4aeb-b9ff-6ebf63cc8097@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xhsmh7bsr3zel.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
Hello Valentin,
On 2/5/2026 10:23 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 20/01/26 11:32, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>> @@ -2655,8 +2655,19 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
>> unsigned int imb_span = 1;
>>
>> for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
>> + struct sched_domain *parent = sd->parent;
>> struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
>>
>> + /* Attach sd->shared to the topmost SD_SHARE_LLC domain. */
>> + if ((sd->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC) &&
>> + (!parent || !(parent->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC))) {
>> + int llc_id = cpumask_first(sched_domain_span(sd));
>> +
>> + sd->shared = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sds, llc_id);
>> + atomic_set(&sd->shared->nr_busy_cpus, sd->span_weight);
>> + atomic_inc(&sd->shared->ref);
>> + }
>> +
>
> We now have two if's looking for the highest_flag_domain(i, SD_SHARE_LLC),
> but given this needs to write the sd->imb_numa_nr for every SD I couldn't
> factorize this into something that looked sane :(
Yeah! The "imb_numa_nr" cares about the "sd_llc" *after* we've crossed
it and "sd->shared" assignment cares when we are *at* the sd_llc.
Since we have to assign the "sd->shared" before claim_allocations(),
I couldn't find a better spot to assign it.
That said, "imb_numa_nr" calculation can be modified to use the "sd_llc"
and its "parent". I'll let you be the judge of whether the following is
better or worse ;-)
(Only build tested)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
index ac268da91778..e98bb812de35 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
@@ -2614,13 +2614,23 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
unsigned int imb_span = 1;
for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
- struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
+ struct sched_domain *parent = sd->parent;
- if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC) && child &&
- (child->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC)) {
- struct sched_domain __rcu *top_p;
+ /* Topmost SD_SHARE_LLC domain. */
+ if ((sd->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC) &&
+ (!parent || !(parent->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC))) {
+ int sd_id = cpumask_first(sched_domain_span(sd));
+ struct sched_domain *top_p;
unsigned int nr_llcs;
+ sd->shared = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sds, sd_id);
+ atomic_set(&sd->shared->nr_busy_cpus, sd->span_weight);
+ atomic_inc(&sd->shared->ref);
+
+ /* No SD_NUMA domains. */
+ if (!parent)
+ break;
+
/*
* For a single LLC per node, allow an
* imbalance up to 12.5% of the node. This is
@@ -2641,7 +2651,7 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
* factors and that there is a correlation
* between LLCs and memory channels.
*/
- nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
+ nr_llcs = parent->span_weight / sd->span_weight;
if (nr_llcs == 1)
imb = sd->span_weight >> 3;
else
@@ -2650,11 +2660,11 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
/* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
- top_p = sd->parent;
+ top_p = parent;
while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
top_p = top_p->parent;
}
- imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;
+ imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : parent->span_weight;
} else {
int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
---
>
>> if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC) && child &&
>> (child->flags & SD_SHARE_LLC)) {
>> struct sched_domain __rcu *top_p;
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-06 5:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-20 11:32 [PATCH v3 0/8] sched/topology: Optimize sd->shared allocation K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] sched/topology: Compute sd_weight considering cpuset partitions K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-21 14:45 ` Chen, Yu C
2026-01-21 15:42 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-22 2:51 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-05 16:53 ` Valentin Schneider
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] sched/topology: Allocate per-CPU sched_domain_shared in s_data K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-21 15:17 ` Chen, Yu C
2026-02-05 16:53 ` Valentin Schneider
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] sched/topology: Switch to assigning "sd->shared" from s_data K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-21 15:26 ` Chen, Yu C
2026-01-22 2:49 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-22 8:12 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-22 8:36 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-23 4:08 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-23 4:53 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-05 16:53 ` Valentin Schneider
2026-02-06 5:20 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-02-06 9:38 ` Valentin Schneider
2026-02-14 3:04 ` Chen, Yu C
2026-02-16 3:50 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-14 2:59 ` Chen, Yu C
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] sched/topology: Remove sched_domain_shared allocation with sd_data K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-05 16:53 ` Valentin Schneider
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] sched/core: Check for rcu_read_lock_any_held() in idle_get_state() K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] sched/fair: Remove superfluous rcu_read_lock() in the wakeup path K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] sched/fair: Simplify the entry condition for update_idle_cpu_scan() K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-14 15:41 ` Chen, Yu C
2026-01-20 11:32 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] sched/fair: Simplify SIS_UTIL handling in select_idle_cpu() K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-23 6:06 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-23 6:27 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-23 7:14 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-02-14 15:56 ` Chen, Yu C
2026-01-21 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 0/8] sched/topology: Optimize sd->shared allocation Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-22 2:56 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-23 9:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=47c5f6eb-1622-4aeb-b9ff-6ebf63cc8097@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.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=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@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