From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.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 17:50:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <acQSPvXPdxfESBB0@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9102f6e4-2360-4999-a036-c92cd039e5d4@arm.com>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 04:26:44PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 25.03.26 13:25, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 12:16:59PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> On 25.03.26 10:32, Andrea Righi wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:23:09AM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >>>> On 24.03.26 12:01, Andrea Righi wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Dietmar,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >>>>>> On 24.03.26 10:46, Andrea Righi wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Christian,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 08:08:22AM +0000, Christian Loehle wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/24/26 07:55, Christian Loehle wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 3/24/26 07:39, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 01:55, Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Exactly, we already prefer fully-idle cores over partially-idle cores with
> > asym-capacity disabled, but in that case the idle selection logic stays in
> > a world of idle bits, without cap/util math, so it's a bit easier. And it's
> > probably fine also when we have both asym-capacity + SMT (at least it seems
> > better than what we have now, ignoring the SMT part).
> >
> > Essentially having somethig like the following (which already gives better
> > performance on Vera):
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index d57c02e82f3a1..534634f813fca 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -8086,7 +8086,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> > * For asymmetric CPU capacity systems, our domain of interest is
> > * sd_asym_cpucapacity rather than sd_llc.
> > */
> > - if (sched_asym_cpucap_active()) {
> > + if (sched_asym_cpucap_active() && !sched_smt_active()) {
> > sd = rcu_dereference_all(per_cpu(sd_asym_cpucapacity, target));
> > /*
> > * On an asymmetric CPU capacity system where an exclusive
>
> Ah, I thought we were talking !sched_asym_cpucap_active() case, either
> by letting CPPC return the same value for all CPUs or by introducing
> this 20%/5% threshold into asym_cpu_capacity_scan().
Sure, we can also equalize capacity via CPPC, but I tought we were worried
about potential regressions with other systems that don't have SMT and may
actually benefit from the asym-capacity logic.
Moreover, if any other platform with SMT enables asym CPU by slightly
exceeding the 5% margin, we may face the same issue again.
>
> ASYM_CPUCAP + SHARE_CPUCAP vs SHARE_CPUCAP would still behave slightly
> differently because of asym_fits_cpu() in all those early bailout
> conditions (1) in sis().
>
> select_idle_sibling()
>
> if (choose_idle_cpu(target, p) &&
> asym_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, target)) <-- (1)
> return target;
>
> ...
Ah yes, this also needs to be changed...
>
> And you would still have misfit_task load balance enabled.
Correct, in fact to get the optimal performance on Vera with asym-capacity
enabled, I also need to fix the misfit logic to prioritize fully-idle SMT
cores. Same with find_new_ilb() and potentially other places. With these I
get almost 2x improvement in some cases, which is pretty big.
But I get similar results also disabling asym-capacity via the 5%
threshold.
>
> Those subtle differences may influence behavior compared to a simpler
> homogeneous CPU capacity model, but it’s unclear whether they justify
> introducing yet another variant alongside the existing homogeneous and
> fully heterogeneous (non-SMT) approaches.
>
> IMHO, we should only consider allowing this if there is clear evidence
> of significant benefits across a representative range of benchmarks and
> workloads.
Totally agree. But there's still the fact that select_idle_capacity() is
not compatible with SMT, so it should be avoided when SMT is enabled, in a
way or another.
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-25 16:50 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 [this message]
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
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=acQSPvXPdxfESBB0@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=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