From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f43.google.com (mail-wm1-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8024B23EA88 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2026 22:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771106554; cv=none; b=BKuY96o1533zyUpnpEgFqrmch0MZ3P8JRtIO5PWe4keW7Y+jXEoTzOWDyQBQJU8vFAeIaSSGv1mlfGKQ71dMrYx9FM+lzk+jZi/fCcq8B0gKNa2aVNQ9OOqkczMjLbOVtDQWri7/uQfHhyZrpGGZQks7mJMJD4lb+cFF5JloCac= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771106554; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Gj+I22Tr3tVH7ZqlO8rebfanQFip8QzVyhWkU7kKwM4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=KsmOnIllI3m9/LvpO8/b4DeqazYQA3zywCvwBw5jlNcAzXEikfOJ4i8VfvoLe81GNRcNrX42AAUil9FH3eC0XID4cislhPsJOvbgDP3oM/71LC5dl9UWe+oRwr4iiCEyNO/brcBJtCzSL3sN8Pr5EUiCfICIDTd4wdo3pvfpzck= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=NJZ2N0D1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="NJZ2N0D1" Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4834826e5a0so19817395e9.2 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:02:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1771106552; x=1771711352; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=paxX9wG390aNg5udrEFUWei2TAJHGt4ATBMIYJAPwO8=; b=NJZ2N0D12r9f2EkyyrIgz/kFT1K48PuvC/rYNaYHGP5gw0wp7/EZsMWdmFQlHlRkQA eE0tHaWY0Vv6iTToEfhUk+dAOHJKIVdYZ41k1zWZYEkVnAguHjwScEn6JbghirEyuvQJ D86L+qfrlev//Kz/10cQBMzcFBODOu6Va/NLVCmXxE57AUU3egN2SOxdZqf4yT1/b+tx +DP3dyGITEKuA7iY7vgp2NcBMRPdj6RI1deVqDA+tCzA7d9KIT5tORZUeVZU7gVcTbev TNeIrztfZiJashB62Mq1VdO+l87hSeTgHzKvnv+eSRaslw7WyghflnEzoTx5+6XkMXVd my1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1771106552; x=1771711352; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=paxX9wG390aNg5udrEFUWei2TAJHGt4ATBMIYJAPwO8=; b=QUXBUW3c8xqauL5QEVb1X0D7Hyfth8TYhYFKG+G/ix4PChbAKoT/yNXW/mXxqnh+WO uTcvdbLbLs5ZLgUiKluvnTobFPhF5vuf6AlSsSFGDHLux3Qe69Rgtjc4w7KdymWRxSLG iVSg1/dwmrjUenH+ihX8PZTKXjppPEfE951q9rIhsByRCh5DqkcY0VQubHt4cG/KvwiB /xPQohq3//ghkz0F07fFwwKC54dPYwKtxw+cZJFl1ehX9XDQXVKLWysd+SHlw7Dabxc1 Ya7RuQW7q3C/gl2Rcnrp+Wax31OvLbVb5VWKhgCkpJXcxZPIy/jLXyInF+3sSXatk4Z6 L0tA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUgxyFvQeL2Tsg5h2piEFQjVNctMNnzov5qmpe1Ona1ojm3D0wpqV79Fsy1l3a6OYZazJjzb8KBI1EHtWc=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx0tDlcGMDQDKurPO4Xv+yuu8YSo/qWomwv+6l22v6PPkshrulw yQFsXR347Uc9nafPucPS4GIzEJp1c29Lmg/VAbTc7bQu0RFN8TVdmJfK X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aKBl3qDi2eXOiANHmV5WeA+GcSvcdnhlTv0s3LIQ+eE4RqOxmyYQeYLQ0JRpcM ltpZKod5kcvq5yXVPR7YJKJSFzG77RHzAaIgj88jMJv3VO36eFc22gNaAPdHFHgYWbr+0Qjr7um 3RYZ2FDcCjfnmr2XjEkdG+psbDmXyMWnoqEy2HLQQgQhBV1/Td4TACo6MHvWIdfq6fJboWnc75o 85LVuLhq0hpCeqHhRf9P8PONWpIeR27+xWCnjg00RUSX6hxBGtrTPgvheMKZEUvN88r5gTd1yu1 VhYDXhqO5h6merf2Dmi2nuvQ/XQTAe2ip5WU6EIyzQR1t4aVErCm+PwAk3sWTH9luz+jGP2sscD 5AVpj9kblbRntEPgT5BeWxLfmqRvAhlaHb5rUsxdqGn+kaBe/wSirEhN9N9/lX1TS+BVm/Qk4+N pU4ZH2imT46dPJP2P2EEgSob269i8I8ozUmqw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1381:b0:483:54cc:cd89 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-48373a1bbc4mr101089835e9.9.1771106551731; Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from WindFlash.powerhub ([2a0a:ef40:1b2a:fa01:9944:6a8c:dc37:eba5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-48371a34d66sm57123695e9.20.2026.02.14.14.02.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:02:31 -0800 (PST) From: Leonardo Bras To: Michal Hocko Cc: Leonardo Bras , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Vlastimil Babka , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Leonardo Bras , Thomas Gleixner , Waiman Long , Boqun Feng , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce QPW for per-cpu operations Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2026 19:02:19 -0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.53.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20260206143430.021026873@redhat.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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 11-02-26 09:01:12, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 03:01:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > What about !PREEMPT_RT? We have people running isolated workloads and > > > these sorts of pcp disruptions are really unwelcome as well. They do not > > > have requirements as strong as RT workloads but the underlying > > > fundamental problem is the same. Frederic (now CCed) is working on > > > moving those pcp book keeping activities to be executed to the return to > > > the userspace which should be taking care of both RT and non-RT > > > configurations AFAICS. > > > > Michal, > > > > For !PREEMPT_RT, _if_ you select CONFIG_QPW=y, then there is a kernel > > boot option qpw=y/n, which controls whether the behaviour will be > > similar (the spinlock is taken on local_lock, similar to PREEMPT_RT). > > My bad. I've misread the config space of this. > > > If CONFIG_QPW=n, or kernel boot option qpw=n, then only local_lock > > (and remote work via work_queue) is used. > > > > What "pcp book keeping activities" you refer to ? I don't see how > > moving certain activities that happen under SLUB or LRU spinlocks > > to happen before return to userspace changes things related > > to avoidance of CPU interruption ? > > Essentially delayed operations like pcp state flushing happens on return > to the userspace on isolated CPUs. No locking changes are required as > the work is still per-cpu. > > In other words the approach Frederic is working on is to not change the > locking of pcp delayed work but instead move that work into well defined > place - i.e. return to the userspace. > > Btw. have you measure the impact of preempt_disbale -> spinlock on hot > paths like SLUB sheeves? Hi Michal, I have done some study on this (which I presented on Plumbers 2023): https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1484/ Since they are per-cpu spinlocks, and the remote operations are not that frequent, as per design of the current approach, we are not supposed to see contention (I was not able to detect contention even after stress testing for weeks), nor relevant cacheline bouncing. That being said, for RT local_locks already get per-cpu spinlocks, so there is only difference for !RT, which as you mention, does preemtp_disable(): The performance impact noticed was mostly about jumping around in executable code, as inlining spinlocks (test #2 on presentation) took care of most of the added extra cycles, adding about 4-14 extra cycles per lock/unlock cycle. (tested on memcg with kmalloc test) Yeah, as expected there is some extra cycles, as we are doing extra atomic operations (even if in a local cacheline) in !RT case, but this could be enabled only if the user thinks this is an ok cost for reducing interruptions. What do you think? Thanks! Leo