From 0d6526f82c3cdefcca47f73f5fc08dc6f335eac6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Chen Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 17:37:22 -0700 Subject: sched/cache: Keep nr_pref_llc_running in the runnable domain, to fix LLC mis-scheduling bug alb_break_llc() decides whether to break LLC preference during active load balance. It does so by testing that every runnable fair task on the source rq prefers its LLC: env->src_rq->nr_pref_llc_running == env->src_rq->cfs.h_nr_runnable But the two counters cover different sets. nr_pref_llc_running is updated in account_llc_enqueue()/account_llc_dequeue(), next to cfs_rq->nr_queued, so it follows queued tasks. h_nr_runnable is updated in set_delayed()/ clear_delayed() and drops delay-dequeued tasks. So under DELAY_DEQUEUE, a preferring task that goes to sleep stays counted in nr_pref_llc_running while h_nr_runnable falls. The equality then breaks, alb_break_llc() returns false, and active balance is free to pull a task off its preferred LLC. Active balance only moves runnable tasks, and this is the only LLC check it consults: once the stopper runs, LBF_ACTIVE_LB skips the per-task test in can_migrate_task(). The runnable set is the one we want. Fix it on the counter side. A task should be counted in nr_pref_llc_running exactly while it is both queued on its preferred LLC (pref_llc_queued) and runnable (!sched_delayed). Define that membership once in task_pref_llc_runnable(), and adjust the counter only through pref_llc_running_inc()/pref_llc_running_dec() from the four sites that change either input: account_llc_enqueue(), account_llc_dequeue(), set_delayed() and clear_delayed(). Gating every update on the same predicate keeps the delay, wake and dequeue paths from double-counting or underflowing; see the comments at those sites for the ordering. nr_llc_running and sd->llc_counts are not touched and stay on queued semantics. Fixes: 714059f79ff0 ("sched/cache: Handle moving single tasks to/from their preferred LLC") Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260827135000.735138-1-zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com/ Reported-by: Zhan Xusheng Suggested-by: Chen Yu Signed-off-by: Tim Chen Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Reviewed-by: Kayra Cizmeci Cc: # v7.2.x Link: https://patch.msgid.link/06af61afedac32e6477f57feb4d658f6c411c3af.1790035273.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com --- Documentation/admin-guide/numastat.rst | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/numastat.rst (limited to 'Documentation/admin-guide/numastat.rst') diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/numastat.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/numastat.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..08ec2c2bd --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/numastat.rst @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +=============================== +Numa policy hit/miss statistics +=============================== + +/sys/devices/system/node/node*/numastat + +All units are pages. Hugepages have separate counters. + +The numa_hit, numa_miss and numa_foreign counters reflect how well processes +are able to allocate memory from nodes they prefer. If they succeed, numa_hit +is incremented on the preferred node, otherwise numa_foreign is incremented on +the preferred node and numa_miss on the node where allocation succeeded. + +Usually preferred node is the one local to the CPU where the process executes, +but restrictions such as mempolicies can change that, so there are also two +counters based on CPU local node. local_node is similar to numa_hit and is +incremented on allocation from a node by CPU on the same node. other_node is +similar to numa_miss and is incremented on the node where allocation succeeds +from a CPU from a different node. Note there is no counter analogical to +numa_foreign. + +In more detail: + +=============== ============================================================ +numa_hit A process wanted to allocate memory from this node, + and succeeded. + +numa_miss A process wanted to allocate memory from another node, + but ended up with memory from this node. + +numa_foreign A process wanted to allocate on this node, + but ended up with memory from another node. + +local_node A process ran on this node's CPU, + and got memory from this node. + +other_node A process ran on a different node's CPU + and got memory from this node. + +interleave_hit Interleaving wanted to allocate from this node + and succeeded. +=============== ============================================================ + +For easier reading you can use the numastat utility from the numactl package +(http://oss.sgi.com/projects/libnuma/). Note that it only works +well right now on machines with a small number of CPUs. + +Note that on systems with memoryless nodes (where a node has CPUs but no +memory) the numa_hit, numa_miss and numa_foreign statistics can be skewed +heavily. In the current kernel implementation, if a process prefers a +memoryless node (i.e. because it is running on one of its local CPU), the +implementation actually treats one of the nearest nodes with memory as the +preferred node. As a result, such allocation will not increase the numa_foreign +counter on the memoryless node, and will skew the numa_hit, numa_miss and +numa_foreign statistics of the nearest node. -- cgit v1.3.1