From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
lenb@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, mingo@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, mark.rutland@arm.com,
sudeep.holla@arm.com, aubrey.li@linux.intel.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
linuxarm@openeuler.org, xuwei5@huawei.com,
prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, tiantao6@hisilicon.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:12:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210108151241.GA47324@e123083-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <737932c9-846a-0a6b-08b8-e2d2d95b67ce@linux.intel.com>
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 03:16:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 1/6/21 12:30 AM, Barry Song wrote:
> > ARM64 server chip Kunpeng 920 has 6 clusters in each NUMA node, and each
> > cluster has 4 cpus. All clusters share L3 cache data while each cluster
> > has local L3 tag. On the other hand, each cluster will share some
> > internal system bus. This means cache is much more affine inside one cluster
> > than across clusters.
>
> There is a similar need for clustering in x86. Some x86 cores could share L2 caches that
> is similar to the cluster in Kupeng 920 (e.g. on Jacobsville there are 6 clusters
> of 4 Atom cores, each cluster sharing a separate L2, and 24 cores sharing L3).
> Having a sched domain at the L2 cluster helps spread load among
> L2 domains. This will reduce L2 cache contention and help with
> performance for low to moderate load scenarios.
IIUC, you are arguing for the exact opposite behaviour, i.e. balancing
between L2 caches while Barry is after consolidating tasks within the
boundaries of a L3 tag cache. One helps cache utilization, the other
communication latency between tasks. Am I missing something?
IMHO, we need some numbers on the table to say which way to go. Looking
at just benchmarks of one type doesn't show that this is a good idea in
general.
Morten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-08 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-06 8:30 [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler Barry Song
2021-01-06 8:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] topology: Represent clusters of CPUs within a die Barry Song
2021-02-09 22:48 ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2021-01-06 8:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] scheduler: add scheduler level for clusters Barry Song
2021-01-06 16:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-06 20:09 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-01-07 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler Tim Chen
2021-01-08 15:12 ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2021-01-08 20:22 ` Tim Chen
2021-01-11 9:28 ` Morten Rasmussen
2021-01-12 11:00 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-01-25 10:50 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-01-26 11:02 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-04-13 10:45 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-04-13 19:00 ` Tim Chen
2021-01-08 21:30 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-01-12 12:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-01-25 11:12 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-02-03 11:32 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-02-16 18:04 ` Tim Chen
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=20210108151241.GA47324@e123083-lin \
--to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@openeuler.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=tiantao6@hisilicon.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=xuwei5@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).