Re: [PATCH v3 11/13] sched/fair: Consider spare capacity in find_idlest_group()

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:16:33PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 03:57:06PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > @@ -5204,6 +5218,13 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> > >                                 load = target_load(i, load_idx);
> > >
> > >                         avg_load += load;
> > > +
> > > +                       spare_cap = capacity_spare_wake(i, p);
> > > +
> > > +                       if (spare_cap > max_spare_cap &&
> > > +                           spare_cap > capacity_of(i) >> 3) {
> > 
> > This condition probably needs some descriptions. You're not only
> > looking for max spare capacity but also a significant spare capacity
> > (more than 12.5% of cpu_capacity_orig). Can't this additional test
> > lead to some strange situation where a CPU with more spare capacity
> > will not be selected because of this 12.5% condition whereas another
> > with less spare capacity will be selected because its capacity_orig is
> > lower ?
> 
> Right, the reason why I added the 12.5% check is that I thought we
> wouldn't want to pack cpus too aggressively. You are right that we could
> reject a 1024 capacity with a spare capacity of 100 and pick a 512
> capacity cpu with a spare capacity of 65.

You could of course track both.. but complexity. At the very least I
agree with Vincent in that this very much deserves a comment.

> From a latency perspective it might not be a bad idea staying away from
> cpus with a utilization even if they have more capacity available as the
> task is more likely to end up waiting on the rq. For throughput tasks
> you would of course want it the other way around.

(debug) tuning-knob ;-)

> > > @@ -5211,12 +5232,27 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> > >
> > >                 if (local_group) {
> > >                         this_load = avg_load;
> > > -               } else if (avg_load < min_load) {
> > > -                       min_load = avg_load;
> > > -                       idlest = group;
> > > +                       this_spare = max_spare_cap;
> > > +               } else {
> > > +                       if (avg_load < min_load) {
> > > +                               min_load = avg_load;
> > > +                               idlest = group;
> > > +                       }
> > > +
> > > +                       if (most_spare < max_spare_cap) {
> > > +                               most_spare = max_spare_cap;
> > > +                               most_spare_sg = group;
> > > +                       }
> > >                 }
> > >         } while (group = group->next, group != sd->groups);
> > >
> > > +       /* Found a significant amount of spare capacity. */
> > 
> > It may worth explaining the threshold when it becomes better to choose
> > the most spare group instead of the least loaded group.
> 
> Yes. I admit that the threshold is somewhat randomly chosen. Based on a
> few experiments I found that requiring enough spare capacity to fit the
> task completely was too conservative. We would bail out and go with the
> least loaded groups very often, especially for new tasks, despite the
> spare capacity only being slightly too small. Allowing a small degree of
> stuffing of the task seemed better. Choosing the least loaded group
> instead doesn't give any better throughput for the waking task unless it
> has high priority. For overall throughput, the most spare capacity cpus
> should be the better choice.
> 
> Should I just add a comment saying that we want to allow a little bit of
> task stuffing to accommodate better for new tasks and have better overall
> throughput, or should we investigate the threshold further?

A comment would certainly be nice..