public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Koba Ko <kobak@nvidia.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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>,
	Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Felix Abecassis <fabecassis@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Avoid spurious asymmetry from CPU capacity noise
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:29:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <acPVRY1NMH4P_y4I@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <oh5uha4ke3ibcdzswum4gmn65jpfjgq4p7lv4z2sukphz5uw4u@nunh45tjvqot>

Hi Koba,

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Koba Ko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 10:39:41AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 08:39:34AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 01:55, Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On some platforms, the firmware may expose per-CPU performance
> > > > differences (e.g., via ACPI CPPC highest_perf) even when the system is
> > > > effectively symmetric. These small variations, typically due to silicon
> > > > binning, are reflected in arch_scale_cpu_capacity() and end up being
> > > > interpreted as real capacity asymmetry.
> > > >
> > > > As a result, the scheduler incorrectly enables SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY,
> > > > triggering asymmetry-specific behaviors, even though all CPUs have
> > > > comparable performance.
> > > >
> > > > Prevent this by treating CPU capacities within 20% of the maximum value
> > > 
> > > 20% is a bit high, my snapdragon rb5 has a mid CPU with a capacity of
> > > 871 but we still want to keep them different
> > > 
> > > Why would 5% not be enough?
> > 
> > Sure, 5% seems a more reasonable margin. I'll just reuse capacity_greater()
> > as suggested by Christian.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Andrea
> > 
> 
> How about modifying asym_cpu_capacity_update_data to group all CPUs within 5% capacity difference into the same group?
> ```
> +#define capacity_greater(cap1, cap2) ((cap1) * 1024 > (cap2) * 1078)
> 
>         list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> -               if (capacity == entry->capacity)
> +               if (!capacity_greater(capacity, entry->capacity) &&
> +                   !capacity_greater(entry->capacity, capacity))

Yeah, makes sense, I like this better than mine. But there's still the
concern of potentially regressing other systems, nullifying the small
asym-capacity benefits (as Chris mentioned here:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/15ffdeb3-a0f3-4b88-92c0-17ffb03b0574@arm.com).

Thanks,
-Andrea

      reply	other threads:[~2026-03-25 12:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-24  0:55 [PATCH] sched/topology: Avoid spurious asymmetry from CPU capacity noise Andrea Righi
2026-03-24  7:39 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-03-24  7:55   ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-24  8:08     ` Christian Loehle
2026-03-24  9:46       ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-24 10:29         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-03-24 11:01           ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-25  9:23             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-03-25  9:32               ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-25 11:16                 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-03-25 12:25                   ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-25 15:26                     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-03-25 16:50                       ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-25 12:48                 ` Phil Auld
2026-03-24  9:39   ` Andrea Righi
2026-03-25  3:30     ` Koba Ko
2026-03-25 12:29       ` Andrea Righi [this message]

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=acPVRY1NMH4P_y4I@gpd4 \
    --to=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=fabecassis@nvidia.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kobak@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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