From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
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>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Mete Durlu <meted@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/fair: Prefer fully idle cores for NOHZ balancing
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2026 20:09:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <anIq6pU5KXTTFCDN@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <92dae374-14ec-4acb-b451-7ac81d9d262b@linux.ibm.com>
Hi Shrikanth,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 08:49:01PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
>
> On 8/4/26 8:43 PM, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > find_new_ilb() selects the first idle housekeeping CPU without
> > considering whether another thread is running on the same physical core.
> > On an SMT system, the idle load balancer can therefore activate both
> > siblings even when another housekeeping CPU has an entirely idle core.
> >
> > On most SMT systems, this is not problematic because the idle load
> > balancer is a short-lived activity and the transient wakeup of a sibling
> > has negligible performance impact.
> >
> > However, this can be particularly costly on NVIDIA Olympus cores used in
> > Vera. Briefly activating an otherwise idle sibling can reduce the
> > performance available to the other sibling and this effect does not
> > necessarily end once the activated sibling becomes idle: after the ILB
> > finishes and its CPU enters WFI, full single-thread performance is
> > restored only after the sibling has remained idle for a qualification
> > interval (10 Ki cycles on the tested Vera system). Repeated short
> > sibling wakeups can therefore sustain the interference even with little
> > actual overlap.
>
> Is this hardware cost has been accounted in things like cpufreq or cpuidle?
> or have you set it already to max performance.
All the CPUs were using the cppc_cpufreq performance governor during the tests.
The scaling minimum frequency was between 95.5% and 97% of the maximum
frequency, depending on the CPU. The CPUs were not strictly pinned to their
maximum frequency, but the performance governor was in use.
The acpi_idle driver was enabled, with both LPI-0 and LPI-1 available. I didn't
disable the idle states.
>
> >
> > Prevent this by preferring an idle housekeeping CPU whose entire SMT
> > core is idle. Retain the first idle CPU as a fallback when no fully idle
> > core is available, so NOHZ balancing continues to make forward progress.
> > Once a partially busy core has been examined, skip its remaining SMT
> > siblings to avoid repeating the core-idle check on wide SMT systems.
> >
>
> Just Curious, making nohz_full=<except first core> yeilds similar numbers?
Yes, provided that the housekeeping core is also excluded from the workload.
I tested this booting with:
nohz_full=1-175,177-351
This leaves CPUs 0 and 176 for housekeeping. I excluded that core from the
workload and ran 87 OpenMP tasks on the remaining node-0 cores (1 task per core,
excluding the housekeeping one):
$ env OMP_NUM_THREADS=87 \
OMP_DYNAMIC=false \
OPENBLAS_LOOPS=10 \
OPENBLAS_PARAM_M=16384 \
OPENBLAS_PARAM_N=16384 \
OPENBLAS_PARAM_K=16384 \
numactl -C 1-87,177-263 --membind=0 \
./benchmark/sgemm.goto 1 1 1
Results:
unpatched : 5.246 TFLOP/s
unpatched+nohz_full : 6.953 TFLOP/s
patched : 6.861 TFLOP/s
patched+nohz_full : 6.984 TFLOP/s
So, nohz_full seems to prevent the problematic ILB wakeups and can produce
similar results for this CPU-bound workload. However, it shouldn't be considered
a sobstiute for the ILB fix, since it requires explicit partitioning and
reserved housekeeping CPUs. Full dyntick also enables context tracking on the
isolated CPUs, adding kernel entry/exit overhead.
Thanks,
-Andrea
>
> > Tests performed using an ad hoc GEMM benchmark running one CPU-intensive
> > task per SMT core within its CPU affinity mask improved from
> > approximately 6.2 TFLOP/s to 9.4 TFLOP/s.
> >
> > Note that this preference may wake a fully idle physical core instead of
> > using an idle sibling of an active core, potentially increasing ILB
> > wakeup latency or energy consumption on some architectures. It may also
> > scan additional CPUs before selecting the one to run the ILB. The
> > selection falls back to the first idle CPU when no fully idle SMT core
> > is available. Non-SMT systems continue to select the first idle
> > housekeeping CPU.
> >
> > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > Cc: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> > Cc: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Mete Durlu <meted@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Remove redundant this_cpu check (Prateek Nayak, Vincent Guittot)
> > - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260731191957.3199642-1-arighi@nvidia.com/
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - After finding an idle fallback, skip all siblings when a busy CPU is
> > encountered, avoiding per-CPU traversal of known-busy cores (Mete Durlu)
> > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260729163225.1987068-1-arighi@nvidia.com/
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Avoid repeated is_core_idle() checks on wide SMT systems by pruning
> > the remaining siblings of a partially busy core (Prateek Nayak)
> > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260728214442.1648483-1-arighi@nvidia.com/
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 37001c63452e5..9a975a684b487 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -13964,29 +13964,62 @@ static inline int on_null_domain(struct rq *rq)
> > */
> > static inline int find_new_ilb(void)
> > {
> > - int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > - const struct cpumask *hk_mask;
> > - int ilb_cpu;
> > + struct cpumask *ilb_cpus;
> > + int ilb_cpu, fallback = -1;
> > +
> > + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Reuse the per-CPU select_rq_mask, which is protected from concurrent
> > + * use on this CPU by having interrupts disabled.
> > + */
> > + ilb_cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_rq_mask);
> > + cpumask_and(ilb_cpus, nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
> > + housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE));
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(ilb_cpu, ilb_cpus) {
> > + if (!idle_cpu(ilb_cpu)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Once an idle fallback exists, a busy CPU proves that
> > + * this core cannot be fully idle. Skip its siblings.
> > + */
> > + if (sched_smt_active() && fallback >= 0)
> > + cpumask_andnot(ilb_cpus, ilb_cpus, cpu_smt_mask(ilb_cpu));
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > - hk_mask = housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE);
> > + /*
> > + * Running the idle load balancer on an idle sibling of a busy
> > + * SMT core can reduce the capacity available to its sibling. Prefer
> > + * a CPU whose entire core is idle, but retain the first idle CPU as
> > + * a fallback so idle balancing can still make progress when no fully
> > + * idle core exists.
> > + */
> > + if (sched_smt_active() && !is_core_idle(ilb_cpu)) {
> > + if (fallback < 0)
> > + fallback = ilb_cpu;
> > - for_each_cpu_and(ilb_cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask, hk_mask) {
> > - if (ilb_cpu == this_cpu)
> > + /*
> > + * The core is not idle, so there is no need to check
> > + * any of its other SMT siblings.
> > + */
> > + cpumask_andnot(ilb_cpus, ilb_cpus,
> > + cpu_smt_mask(ilb_cpu));
> > continue;
> > + }
> > - if (idle_cpu(ilb_cpu))
> > - return ilb_cpu;
> > + return ilb_cpu;
> > }
> > - return -1;
> > + return fallback;
> > }
> > /*
> > * Kick a CPU to do the NOHZ balancing, if it is time for it, via a cross-CPU
> > * SMP function call (IPI).
> > *
> > - * We pick the first idle CPU in the HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE housekeeping set
> > - * (if there is one).
> > + * Prefer a CPU on a fully idle core in the HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE housekeeping
> > + * set. Fall back to the first idle CPU when no fully idle core exists.
> > */
> > static void kick_ilb(unsigned int flags)
> > {
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-04 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 15:13 [PATCH v4] sched/fair: Prefer fully idle cores for NOHZ balancing Andrea Righi
2026-08-04 15:19 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-08-04 18:09 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-08-04 21:18 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-08-05 10:31 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-08-06 10:26 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-08-06 13:18 ` 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=anIq6pU5KXTTFCDN@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=meted@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--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