Re: [PATCH v11 05/12] sched/core: Try to use a preferred CPU in is_cpu_allowed

On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 at 09:51, Dietmar Eggemann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 25.08.26 12:38, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> > When possible, try to choose a preferred CPU.
> >
> > This is essential to maintain user affinities when preferred
> > CPUs change. A task pinned on a non-preferred CPU should continue
> > to run there, since this is a non-user triggered event.
> >
> > If a CPU is non-preferred and the task can run on other CPUs which are
> > currently preferred, then choose a preferred CPU instead.
> > This is decided by checking if cpus_ptr and cpu_preferred_mask
> > intersect or not. If yes, then the task has other preferred CPUs.
> >
> > The push task mechanism uses a stopper thread which calls
> > select_fallback_rq() and uses this mechanism to pick a preferred CPU.
> >
> > This takes care of the wakeup path for FAIR tasks too.
> > is_cpu_allowed() is called to ensure wakeups happen on preferred CPUs.
> > With that, additional checks in available_idle_cpu() are not necessary.
> >
> > Ignore the preferred CPU state if a task's affinity is changing and
> > its new mask no longer includes the CPU it is currently running on.
> > This ensures migration_cpu_stop() does not abort, preventing the task
> > from being stranded outside its allowed affinity.
> >
> > Account for tasks with architecture-specific CPU masks
> > (e.g., 32-bit tasks on arm64). For such tasks, explicitly check against
> > the arch-allowed CPUs to determine if any of the preferred CPUs are
> > actually valid.
> >
> > For the majority of cases, this would still keep select_fallback_rq()
> > as O(N). cpumask_intersects(), which is O(N), is called only if
> > !cpu_preferred. The task running there is expected to move out.
> > Subsequently, it should run on a preferred CPU. This becomes O(N**2)
> > only for tasks pinned solely to non-preferred CPUs. That is a rare case.
> >
> > Overhead is minimal when the CPU is preferred.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shrikanth Hegde <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/core.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index a45f7c308329..f71317fe281d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -2494,6 +2494,35 @@ static inline bool rq_has_pinned_tasks(struct rq *rq)
> >       return rq->nr_pinned;
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline bool task_can_sched_on_preferred(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > +     const struct cpumask *valid_mask;
> > +     int i;
> > +
> > +     if (cpu_preferred(cpu))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     /* Only FAIR tasks honor preferred CPU state */
> > +     if (unlikely(p->sched_class != &fair_sched_class))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     /* Ignore preferred state if task affinity is changing */
> > +     if (unlikely(!cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), p->cpus_ptr)))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     valid_mask = task_cpu_possible_mask(p);
> > +     if (likely(valid_mask == cpu_possible_mask))
> > +             return cpumask_intersects(p->cpus_ptr, cpu_preferred_mask);
> > +
> > +     /* Tasks with arch-specific CPU masks. e.g. 32-bit tasks on arm64. */
> > +     for_each_cpu_and(i, p->cpus_ptr, cpu_preferred_mask) {
> > +             if (cpumask_test_cpu(i, valid_mask))
> > +                     return true;
> > +     }
>
> Looking more into this, there might be a window in 64-32-bit execve()
> for 32bit EL0 tasks on Arm64 (w/ allow_mismatched_32bit_el0 command line
> option).
>
> The time before arch_setup_new_exec() calls
> force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() to restrict CPU affinity for those
> tasks.
>
> Let me run more test on this ...
>
> Why not simply:
>
> - return cpumask_intersects(p->cpus_ptr, cpu_preferred_mask);
> + return cpumask_first_and_and(p->cpus_ptr, cpu_preferred_mask,
> +                              task_cpu_possible_mask(p)) < nr_cpu_ids;

+1
This is the best way to check that there is a valid cpu

>
> IMHO, you want to know whether there is at least one CPU that belongs to
> all three CPU masks?
>
> [...]