Re: [RFC PATCH 01/19] sched/fair: Simplify set_cpu_sd_state_*() with guards

[K Prateek Nayak]

Hello Shrikanth,

Thank you for the review.

On 9/25/2025 1:56 AM, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> we have both sd_llc->shared and sd_llc_shared usage spread
> across the code, is it possible to remove sd_llc_shared and use sd_llc->shared
> instead?
> 
> Likely sd_llc is cache hot and access to shared should be fast too.
> In turn this could free up some per cpu area.

Ack! That can be done. Probably the motivation was to avoid an
additional dereference in the scheduler hot-path but apart from
{set,test}_idle_cores(), most other usage is either in the slow-path, or
we readily have access to "sd_llc" already so dereferencing
"sd_llc->shared" shouldn't be any more expensive.

/me goes and looks at usage of {set,test}_idle_cores()

So set_idle_cores(), I would consider, is still in the slow path since
the CPU is going idle and out of all calls to test_idle_cores(), only
numa_idle_core() doesn't access "sd_llc" prior to test_idle_core() but
given it is in a for_each_cpu() loop, I think we can make some
optimizations there to reduce the amount of dereferencing.

> 
> Any thoughts?

I think it makes sense. I can send out a separate series with Patch 1,2
and this cleanup on its own discussion the optimization for the
"nohz.idle_cpus_mask" in a separate series.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek