From: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce QPW for per-cpu operations
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 20:56:21 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYZ2fM39jyoOF247@WindFlash> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260206143430.021026873@redhat.com>
On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 11:34:30AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> The problem:
> Some places in the kernel implement a parallel programming strategy
> consisting on local_locks() for most of the work, and some rare remote
> operations are scheduled on target cpu. This keeps cache bouncing low since
> cacheline tends to be mostly local, and avoids the cost of locks in non-RT
> kernels, even though the very few remote operations will be expensive due
> to scheduling overhead.
>
> On the other hand, for RT workloads this can represent a problem: getting
> an important workload scheduled out to deal with remote requests is
> sure to introduce unexpected deadline misses.
>
> The idea:
> Currently with PREEMPT_RT=y, local_locks() become per-cpu spinlocks.
> In this case, instead of scheduling work on a remote cpu, it should
> be safe to grab that remote cpu's per-cpu spinlock and run the required
> work locally. That major cost, which is un/locking in every local function,
> already happens in PREEMPT_RT.
>
> Also, there is no need to worry about extra cache bouncing:
> The cacheline invalidation already happens due to schedule_work_on().
>
> This will avoid schedule_work_on(), and thus avoid scheduling-out an
> RT workload.
>
Marcelo, thanks for finishing this series!
> Proposed solution:
> A new interface called Queue PerCPU Work (QPW), which should replace
> Work Queue in the above mentioned use case.
>
> If PREEMPT_RT=n this interfaces just wraps the current
Are we enabling it by default in PREEMPT_RT=y? If not,
If CONFIG_QPW=n or qpw=0 this interfaces just wraps the current
> local_locks + WorkQueue behavior, so no expected change in runtime.
>
> If PREEMPT_RT=y, or CONFIG_QPW=y, queue_percpu_work_on(cpu,...) will
Same here
If CONFIG_QPW=y and qpw=1, queue_percpu_work_on(cpu,...) will
> lock that cpu's per-cpu structure and perform work on it locally.
> This is possible because on functions that can be used for performing
> remote work on remote per-cpu structures, the local_lock (which is already
> a this_cpu spinlock()), will be replaced by a qpw_spinlock(), which
> is able to get the per_cpu spinlock() for the cpu passed as parameter.
>
> RFC->v1:
>
> - Introduce CONFIG_QPW and qpw= kernel boot option to enable
> remote spinlocking and execution even on !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> kernels (Leonardo Bras).
> - Move buffer_head draining to separate workqueue (Marcelo Tosatti).
> - Convert mlock per-CPU page lists to QPW (Marcelo Tosatti).
> - Drop memcontrol convertion (as isolated CPUs are not targets
> of queue_work_on anymore).
> - Rebase SLUB against Vlastimil's slab/next.
> - Add basic document for QPW (Waiman Long).
A document was a nice touch :)
>
>
> The following testcase triggers lru_add_drain_all on an isolated CPU
> (that does sys_write to a file before entering its realtime
> loop).
>
> /*
> * Simulates a low latency loop program that is interrupted
> * due to lru_add_drain_all. To trigger lru_add_drain_all, run:
> *
> * blockdev --flushbufs /dev/sdX
> *
> */
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdarg.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <sched.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> int cpu;
>
> static void *run(void *arg)
> {
> pthread_t current_thread;
> cpu_set_t cpuset;
> int ret, nrloops;
> struct sched_param sched_p;
> pid_t pid;
> int fd;
> char buf[] = "xxxxxxxxxxx";
>
> CPU_ZERO(&cpuset);
> CPU_SET(cpu, &cpuset);
>
> current_thread = pthread_self();
> ret = pthread_setaffinity_np(current_thread, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpuset);
> if (ret) {
> perror("pthread_setaffinity_np failed\n");
> exit(0);
> }
>
> memset(&sched_p, 0, sizeof(struct sched_param));
> sched_p.sched_priority = 1;
> pid = gettid();
> ret = sched_setscheduler(pid, SCHED_FIFO, &sched_p);
> if (ret) {
> perror("sched_setscheduler");
> exit(0);
> }
>
> fd = open("/tmp/tmpfile", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC);
> if (fd == -1) {
> perror("open");
> exit(0);
> }
>
> ret = write(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
> if (ret == -1) {
> perror("write");
> exit(0);
> }
>
> do {
> nrloops = nrloops+2;
> nrloops--;
> } while (1);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int fd, ret;
> pthread_t thread;
> long val;
> char *endptr, *str;
> struct sched_param sched_p;
> pid_t pid;
>
> if (argc != 2) {
> printf("usage: %s cpu-nr\n", argv[0]);
> printf("where CPU number is the CPU to pin thread to\n");
> exit(0);
> }
> str = argv[1];
> cpu = strtol(str, &endptr, 10);
> if (cpu < 0) {
> printf("strtol returns %d\n", cpu);
> exit(0);
> }
> printf("cpunr=%d\n", cpu);
>
> memset(&sched_p, 0, sizeof(struct sched_param));
> sched_p.sched_priority = 1;
> pid = getpid();
> ret = sched_setscheduler(pid, SCHED_FIFO, &sched_p);
> if (ret) {
> perror("sched_setscheduler");
> exit(0);
> }
>
> pthread_create(&thread, NULL, run, NULL);
>
> sleep(5000);
>
> pthread_join(thread, NULL);
> }
>
>
Also, having the reproducer in the cover letter was a great idea!
Thanks!
Leo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-06 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-06 14:34 Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-06 14:34 ` [PATCH 1/4] Introducing qpw_lock() and per-cpu queue & flush work Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-06 15:20 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-07 0:16 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-11 12:09 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-14 21:32 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-06 14:34 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm/swap: move bh draining into a separate workqueue Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-06 14:34 ` [PATCH 3/4] swap: apply new queue_percpu_work_on() interface Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-07 1:06 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-06 14:34 ` [PATCH 4/4] slub: " Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-07 1:27 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-06 23:56 ` Leonardo Bras [this message]
2026-02-10 14:01 ` [PATCH 0/4] Introduce QPW for per-cpu operations Michal Hocko
2026-02-11 12:01 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-11 12:11 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-14 21:35 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-11 16:38 ` Michal Hocko
2026-02-11 16:50 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-11 16:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
2026-02-11 17:07 ` Michal Hocko
2026-02-14 22:02 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-16 11:00 ` Michal Hocko
2026-02-19 15:27 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-19 19:30 ` Michal Hocko
2026-02-20 14:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-20 10:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2026-02-20 12:31 ` Michal Hocko
2026-02-20 17:35 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-20 17:58 ` Vlastimil Babka
2026-02-20 19:01 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-20 16:51 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-20 16:55 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2026-02-20 22:38 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-20 21:58 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-02-19 13:15 ` Marcelo Tosatti
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=aYZ2fM39jyoOF247@WindFlash \
--to=leobras.c@gmail.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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