All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
	Gautham Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 12:36:54 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220204070654.GF618915@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220203144652.12540-3-mgorman@techsingularity.net>

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> [2022-02-03 14:46:52]:

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index d201a7052a29..e6cd55951304 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -2242,6 +2242,59 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * Calculate an allowed NUMA imbalance such that LLCs do not get
> +	 * imbalanced.
> +	 */

We seem to adding this hunk before the sched_domains may be degenerated.
Wondering if we really want to do it before degeneration.

Let say we have 3 sched domains and we calculated the sd->imb_numa_nr for
all the 3 domains, then lets say the middle sched_domain gets degenerated. 
Would the sd->imb_numa_nr's still be relevant?


> +	for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
> +		unsigned int imb = 0;
> +		unsigned int imb_span = 1;
> +
> +		for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
> +			struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
> +
> +			if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) && child &&
> +			    (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
> +				struct sched_domain *top, *top_p;
> +				unsigned int nr_llcs;
> +
> +				/*
> +				 * For a single LLC per node, allow an
> +				 * imbalance up to 25% of the node. This is an
> +				 * arbitrary cutoff based on SMT-2 to balance
> +				 * between memory bandwidth and avoiding
> +				 * premature sharing of HT resources and SMT-4
> +				 * or SMT-8 *may* benefit from a different
> +				 * cutoff.
> +				 *
> +				 * For multiple LLCs, allow an imbalance
> +				 * until multiple tasks would share an LLC
> +				 * on one node while LLCs on another node
> +				 * remain idle.
> +				 */
> +				nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
> +				if (nr_llcs == 1)
> +					imb = sd->span_weight >> 2;
> +				else
> +					imb = nr_llcs;
> +				sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
> +
> +				/* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
> +				top = sd;
> +				top_p = top->parent;
> +				while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
> +					top = top->parent;
> +					top_p = top->parent;
> +				}
> +				imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;

I am getting confused by imb_span.
Let say we have a topology of SMT -> MC -> DIE -> NUMA -> NUMA, with SMT and
MC domains having SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag set.
We come here only for DIE domain.

imb_span set here is being used for both the subsequent sched domains
most likely they will be NUMA domains. Right?

> +			} else {
> +				int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
> +
> +				sd->imb_numa_nr = imb * factor;

For SMT, (or any sched domains below the llcs) factor would be
sd->span_weight but imb_numa_nr and imb would be 0.
For NUMA (or any sched domain just above DIE), factor would be
sd->imb_numa_nr would be nr_llcs.
For subsequent sched_domains, the sd->imb_numa_nr would be some multiple of
nr_llcs. Right?


> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	/* Calculate CPU capacity for physical packages and nodes */
>  	for (i = nr_cpumask_bits-1; i >= 0; i--) {
>  		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_map))
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-02-04  7:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-03 14:46 [PATCH v5 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for multiple LLCs Mel Gorman
2022-02-03 14:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Improve consistency of allowed NUMA balance calculations Mel Gorman
2022-02-03 14:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs Mel Gorman
2022-02-04  1:30   ` kernel test robot
2022-02-04  7:06   ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2022-02-04  9:04     ` Mel Gorman
2022-02-04 15:07   ` Nayak, KPrateek (K Prateek)
2022-02-04 16:45     ` Mel Gorman
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-02-08  9:43 [PATCH v6 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2022-02-08  9:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman
2022-02-08 16:19   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2022-02-09  5:10   ` K Prateek Nayak
2022-02-09 10:33     ` Mel Gorman
2022-02-11 19:02       ` Jirka Hladky
2022-02-14 10:27   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2022-02-14 11:03   ` Vincent Guittot
2021-12-10  9:33 [PATCH v4 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2021-12-10  9:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman
2021-12-13  8:28   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-13 13:01     ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-13 14:47       ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-15 11:52         ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-15 12:25           ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-16 18:33             ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-20 11:12               ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-21 15:03                 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-21 17:13                 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-12-22  8:52                   ` Jirka Hladky
2022-01-04 19:52                     ` Jirka Hladky
2022-01-05 10:42                   ` Mel Gorman
2022-01-05 10:49                     ` Mel Gorman
2022-01-10 15:53                     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-01-12 10:24                       ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-17 19:54   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-01 15:18 [PATCH v3 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2021-12-01 15:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman
2021-12-03  8:15   ` Barry Song
2021-12-03 10:50     ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-03 11:14       ` Barry Song
2021-12-03 13:27         ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-04 10:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-06  8:48     ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-06 14:51       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-06 15:12     ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-09 14:23       ` Valentin Schneider
2021-12-09 15:43         ` Mel Gorman
2021-11-25 15:19 [PATCH 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2021-11-25 15:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman
2021-11-26 23:22   ` kernel test robot

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=20220204070654.GF618915@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.