From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
iii@linux.ibm.com, tglx@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
huschle@linux.ibm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, mgorman@suse.de, bsegall@google.com,
maddy@linux.ibm.com, srikar@linux.ibm.com, hdanton@sina.com,
chleroy@kernel.org, vineeth@bitbyteword.org, frederic@kernel.org,
arighi@nvidia.com, pauld@redhat.com, christian.loehle@arm.com,
tj@kernel.org, tommaso.cucinotta@gmail.com, maz@kernel.org,
rafael@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/20] sched/core: allow only preferred CPUs in is_cpu_allowed
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:49:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ajN49OZUt3kvN9hm@yury> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4546759-b316-47e7-aa97-408e20d0f6ed@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 09:47:49AM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>
>
> On 6/18/26 9:02 AM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 11:11:25PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> > > When possible, choose a preferred CPUs to pick.
> > >
> > > Push task mechanism uses stopper thread which going to call
> > > select_fallback_rq and use this mechanism to pick only a preferred CPU.
> > >
> > > When task is affined only to non-preferred CPUs it should continue to
> > > run there. Detect that by checking if cpus_ptr and cpu_preferred_mask
> > > intersect or not.
> > >
> > > Since is_cpu_allowed can be called directly or repeatedly in
> > > select_fallback_rq, encode the info in task_struct->has_preferred_cpu_state
> > > if the path is via select_fallback_rq or not.
> > > This helps to avoid N**2 complexity for the rare cases.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > v3->v4:
> > > - Missing case of PF_KTHREAD is avoided.
> > > - Add a new field in task_struct which encodes intersection of
> > > tasks affinity and preferred CPUs and path its coming from.
> > >
> > > include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
> > > kernel/sched/core.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > kernel/sched/sched.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > index fc6ecb3869dd..2d0b1a6d50ac 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > @@ -1657,6 +1657,7 @@ struct task_struct {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_UNWIND_USER
> > > struct unwind_task_info unwind_info;
> > > #endif
> > > + int has_preferred_cpu_state;
> >
> > Shouldn't this be protected with the config?
>
> Since preferred is defined always, i don;t see a reason to add it again here.
>
> >
> > > /* CPU-specific state of this task: */
> > > struct thread_struct thread;
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index 9e16946c9d62..714816cfa975 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -2500,6 +2500,8 @@ static inline bool rq_has_pinned_tasks(struct rq *rq)
> > > */
> > > static inline bool is_cpu_allowed(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > > {
> > > + bool task_check_preferred_cpu = false;
> >
> > Initialization is not needed.
>
> ok
>
> >
> > > +
> > > /* When not in the task's cpumask, no point in looking further. */
> > > if (!task_allowed_on_cpu(p, cpu))
> > > return false;
> > > @@ -2508,9 +2510,22 @@ static inline bool is_cpu_allowed(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > > if (is_migration_disabled(p))
> > > return cpu_online(cpu);
> > > + /*
> > > + * This is essential to maintain user affinities when preferred
> > > + * CPUs change. A task pinned on non-preferred CPU should continue
> > > + * to run there, since this is non-user triggered.
> > > + *
> > > + * If CPU is non-preferred and task can run on other CPUs which are
> > > + * currently preferred, then choose those other CPUs instead
> > > + */
> > > + task_check_preferred_cpu = !cpu_preferred(cpu) && task_has_preferred_cpus(p);
> > > +
> > > /* Non kernel threads are not allowed during either online or offline. */
> > > - if (!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> > > + if (!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
> > > + if (task_check_preferred_cpu)
> > > + return false;
> > > return cpu_active(cpu);
> > > + }
> > > /* KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU is always allowed. */
> > > if (kthread_is_per_cpu(p))
> > > @@ -2520,6 +2535,10 @@ static inline bool is_cpu_allowed(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > > if (cpu_dying(cpu))
> > > return false;
> > > + /* Try on preferred CPU first if possible*/
> > > + if (task_check_preferred_cpu)
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > /* But are allowed during online. */
> > > return cpu_online(cpu);
> > > }
> > > @@ -3549,6 +3568,14 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> > > enum { cpuset, possible, fail } state = cpuset;
> > > int dest_cpu;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Cache value whether task's affinity spans preferred CPUs.
> >
> > Because it's cached, it should go inside is_cpu_allowed(), I think.
> >
> > > + * This helps to avoid repeating the same for each CPU
> > > + * later in the loop. Encode call to is_cpu_allowed coming
> > > + * via select_fallback_rq.
> > > + */
> > > + p->has_preferred_cpu_state = task_has_preferred_cpus(p) << 8 | 0x1;
> >
> > This looks weird. Your intention is to store three states: not cached, has
> > preferred CPUs and has not preferred CPUs,
> >
> > Why don't you create an enum for it? Or a couple of flags?
>
> I think what prateek suggested in other thread looks same. I will give that a try.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * If the node that the CPU is on has been offlined, cpu_to_node()
> > > * will return -1. There is no CPU on the node, and we should
> > > @@ -3560,7 +3587,7 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> > > /* Look for allowed, online CPU in same node. */
> > > for_each_cpu(dest_cpu, nodemask) {
> > > if (is_cpu_allowed(p, dest_cpu))
> > > - return dest_cpu;
> > > + goto clear_and_return;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > @@ -3604,6 +3631,8 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> > > }
> > > }
> > > +clear_and_return:
> > > + p->has_preferred_cpu_state = 0;
> >
>
> It is reset to indicate that any subsequent direct calls to is_cpu_allowed can't use the
> old cached value of select_fallback_rq.
>
> So events could be,
>
> - cpu marked as non preferred - select_fallback_rq (sets the p->has_preferred_cpu_state)
> Lets say CPU(300-450) are marked as non-preferred and Task affinity is (200-350)
> - task moved out. Now either task's affinity changed or preferred_mask has changed.
> while CPU(400) maybe still marked as non-preferred but CPU(340) is marked as preferred.
> - Subsequent call to is_cpu_allowed (CPU=340) can't assume the old value.
Please, no top-posting.
My point is: out of the scope of the select_fallback_rq(), the
p->has_preferred_cpu_state is always 0 because of the line above. It
means, it doesn't belong to the task_struct, it belongs the current
scope.
So either make this caching really surviving the scope exit, or make
it a local variable.
Not sure I understood the passage above about the possible events, but
variables that are always zero out of the function scope should not be
placed in global structures.
> > What for resetting it here? I think it should be zeroed only on update
> > of preferred cpumask. In other words, to properly implement caching,
> > you need to have a global counter incremented on each
> > cpu_preferred_mask update, and in task_has_preferred_cpus() you do:
> >
> > {
> > if (p->preferred_cpu_updates == atomic_read(preferred_cpumask_updates))
> > return p->has_preferred_cpus;
> >
> > p->preferred_cpu_updates = atomic_read(preferred_cpumask_updates);
> > p->has_preferred_cpus = cpumask_intersects(...);
> > }
> >
> > Do you have any numbers that justify this caching? The best practice
> > is to put performance optimizations at the end of the series and
> > provide some sort of benchmark supporting it.
> >
>
> This was to avoid N**2 aspect that was there in select_fallback_rq.
> Its more of the functional aspect which i mentioned above which this needs
> to take care as well.
Please, collect the performance data first, then optimize your code,
not vice-versa.
> > > return dest_cpu;
> > > }
> > > @@ -4612,6 +4641,7 @@ static void __sched_fork(u64 clone_flags, struct task_struct *p)
> > > init_numa_balancing(clone_flags, p);
> > > p->wake_entry.u_flags = CSD_TYPE_TTWU;
> > > p->migration_pending = NULL;
> > > + p->has_preferred_cpu_state = 0;
> > > init_sched_mm(p);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > index c7c2dea65edd..38fd84b0b8f8 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > @@ -4213,4 +4213,22 @@ DEFINE_CLASS_IS_UNCONDITIONAL(sched_change)
> > > #include "ext.h"
> > > +/*
> > > + * has_preferred_cpu_state is encoding two bits of information.
> > > + * First Byte is to encode where the call to is_cpu_allowed coming from.
> > > + * Second Byte is to encode the intersection of task affinity
> > > + * and cpu_preferred_mask.
> > > + *
> > > + * If 1st Byte is set, call to is_cpu_allowed coming from select_fallback_rq.
> > > + * That helps to avoid repeated calculation keeping time complexity same.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline bool task_has_preferred_cpus(struct task_struct *p)
> >
> > This function should be void because you change the task state.
> >
>
> It doesn't alter p->has_preferred_cpu_state. No?
It doesn't, but it should.
> > > +{
> > > + int cached_value = p->has_preferred_cpu_state;
> > > +
> > > + if (cached_value & 0x1)
> > > + return p->has_preferred_cpu_state >> 8;
> > > + else
> > > + return cpumask_intersects(p->cpus_ptr, cpu_preferred_mask);
> > > +}
> > > #endif /* _KERNEL_SCHED_SCHED_H */
> > > --
> > > 2.47.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-18 4:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-17 17:41 [PATCH v4 00/20] sched: Introduce cpu_preferred_mask and steal-driven vCPU backoff Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 01/20] sched/debug: Remove unused schedstats Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 02/20] sched/docs: Document cpu_preferred_mask and Preferred CPU concept Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 03/20] kconfig: Provide PREFERRED_CPU option Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 0:51 ` Yury Norov
2026-06-18 3:44 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 04/20] cpumask: Introduce cpu_preferred_mask Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 1:29 ` Yury Norov
2026-06-18 3:53 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 8:27 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 05/20] sysfs: Add preferred CPU file Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 06/20] sched/core: allow only preferred CPUs in is_cpu_allowed Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 3:32 ` Yury Norov
[not found] ` <c4546759-b316-47e7-aa97-408e20d0f6ed@linux.ibm.com>
2026-06-18 4:49 ` Yury Norov [this message]
2026-06-18 5:14 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 3:49 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-06-18 4:22 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 07/20] sched/fair: Select preferred CPU at wakeup when possible Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 08/20] sched/fair: load balance only among preferred CPUs Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 3:03 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-06-18 3:54 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 09/20] sched/core: Keep tick on non-preferred CPUs until tasks are out Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 10/20] sched/core: Push current task from non preferred CPU Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 4:09 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-06-18 6:05 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 11/20] sched/debug: Add migration stats due to non preferred CPUs Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 12/20] sched/debug: Create debugfs folder steal monitor Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 13/20] sched/debug: Provide debugfs to enable/disable " Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 14/20] sched/core: Introduce a simple " Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 4:30 ` Yury Norov
2026-06-18 4:44 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 5:32 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-06-18 6:01 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 6:39 ` Yury Norov
2026-06-18 6:45 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 7:16 ` Yury Norov
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 15/20] sched/core: Compute steal values at regular intervals Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 4:04 ` Yury Norov
2026-06-18 5:39 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 16/20] sched/core: Introduce default arch handling code for inc/dec preferred CPUs Shrikanth Hegde
[not found] ` <ajNwy25WYg45AQJX@yury>
2026-06-18 4:42 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 17/20] sched/core: Handle steal values and mark CPUs as preferred Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 18/20] sched/core: Mark the direction of steal values to avoid oscillations Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 19/20] sched/debug: Add debug knobs for steal monitor Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-17 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 20/20] sched/core: Add a few check for valid CPU in inc/dec of preferred CPUs Shrikanth Hegde
2026-06-18 4:21 ` Yury Norov
2026-06-18 4:40 ` 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=ajN49OZUt3kvN9hm@yury \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chleroy@kernel.org \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=huschle@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@gmail.com \
--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