From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
maddy@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] sched: Static key to check paravirt cpu push
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:53:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMIrgI9J4fuXntRz@yury> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250910174210.1969750-4-sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 11:12:03PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> CPUs are marked paravirt when there is contention for underlying
> physical CPU.
>
> The push mechanism and check for paravirt CPUs are in sched tick
> and wakeup. It should be close to no-op when there is no need for it.
> Achieve that using static key.
>
> Architecture needs to enable this key when it decides there are
> paravirt CPUs. Disable it when there are no paravirt CPUs.
Testing a bit is quite close to a no-op, isn't it? Have you measured
the performance impact that would advocate the static key? Please
share some numbers then. I believe I asked you about it on the previous
round.
> Signed-off-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 1 +
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 0f1e36bb5779..b8a84e4691c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -10967,4 +10967,5 @@ void sched_enq_and_set_task(struct sched_enq_and_set_ctx *ctx)
> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> struct cpumask __cpu_paravirt_mask __read_mostly;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpu_paravirt_mask);
> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(cpu_paravirt_push_tasks);
> #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index b5367c514c14..8f9991453d36 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -3880,4 +3880,21 @@ void sched_enq_and_set_task(struct sched_enq_and_set_ctx *ctx);
>
> #include "ext.h"
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(cpu_paravirt_push_tasks);
> +
> +static inline bool is_cpu_paravirt(int cpu)
> +{
> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&cpu_paravirt_push_tasks))
> + return cpu_paravirt(cpu);
> +
> + return false;
> +}
So is_cpu_paravirt and cpu_paravirt are exactly the same in terms of
functionality. If you really believe that static branch benefits the
performance, it should go straight to the cpu_paravirt().
> +#else /* !CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
> +static inline bool is_cpu_paravirt(int cpu)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +#endif /* !CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
> +
> #endif /* _KERNEL_SCHED_SCHED_H */
> --
> 2.47.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-11 1:53 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 [this message]
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
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=aMIrgI9J4fuXntRz@yury \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.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=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=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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