From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, pjt@google.com,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com,
Vineeth Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 13/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 17:01:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190410150116.GI2490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554835135-11814-1-git-send-email-jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:38:55PM -0400, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> We found the source of the major performance regression we discussed
> previously. It turns out there was a pattern where a task (a kworker in this
> case) could be woken up, but the core could still end up idle before that
> task had a chance to run.
>
> Example sequence, cpu0 and cpu1 and siblings on the same core, task1 and
> task2 are in the same cgroup with the tag enabled (each following line
> happens in the increasing order of time):
> - task1 running on cpu0, task2 running on cpu1
> - sched_waking(kworker/0, target_cpu=cpu0)
> - task1 scheduled out of cpu0
> - kworker/0 cannot run on cpu0 because of task2 is still running on cpu1
> cpu0 is idle
> - task2 scheduled out of cpu1
But at this point core_cookie is still set; we don't clear it when the
last task goes away.
> - cpu1 doesn’t select kworker/0 for cpu0, because the optimization path ends
> the task selection if core_cookie is NULL for currently selected process
> and the cpu1’s runqueue.
But at this point core_cookie is still set, we only (re)set it later to
p->core_cookie.
What I suspect happens is that you hit the 'again' clause due to a
higher prio @max on the second sibling. And at that point we've
destroyed core_cookie.
> - cpu1 is idle
> --> both siblings are idle but kworker/0 is still in the run queue of cpu0.
> Cpu0 may stay idle for longer if it goes deep idle.
>
> With the fix below, we ensure to send an IPI to the sibling if it is idle
> and has tasks waiting in its runqueue.
> This fixes the performance issue we were seeing.
>
> Now here is what we can measure with a disk write-intensive benchmark:
> - no performance impact with enabling core scheduling without any tagged
> task,
> - 5% overhead if one tagged task is competing with an untagged task,
> - 10% overhead if 2 tasks tagged with a different tag are competing
> against each other.
>
> We are starting more scaling tests, but this is very encouraging !
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index e1fa10561279..02c862a5e973 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3779,7 +3779,22 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>
> trace_printk("unconstrained pick: %s/%d %lx\n",
> next->comm, next->pid, next->core_cookie);
> + rq->core_pick = NULL;
>
> + /*
> + * If the sibling is idling, we might want to wake it
> + * so that it can check for any runnable but blocked tasks
> + * due to previous task matching.
> + */
> + for_each_cpu(j, smt_mask) {
> + struct rq *rq_j = cpu_rq(j);
> + rq_j->core_pick = NULL;
> + if (j != cpu && is_idle_task(rq_j->curr) && rq_j->nr_running) {
> + resched_curr(rq_j);
> + trace_printk("IPI(%d->%d[%d]) idle preempt\n",
> + cpu, j, rq_j->nr_running);
> + }
> + }
> goto done;
> }
I'm thinking there is a more elegant solution hiding in there; possibly
saving/restoring that core_cookie on the again loop should do, but I've
always had the nagging suspicion that whole selection loop could be done
better.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-10 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-18 16:56 [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/16] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/16] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:13 ` Phil Auld
2019-02-19 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:37 ` Phil Auld
2019-03-18 15:41 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-20 2:29 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-21 21:20 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-22 13:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 20:59 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-23 0:06 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-27 1:02 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-29 13:35 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-29 22:23 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-01 21:35 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-03 20:16 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-05 1:30 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-02 7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 23:28 ` Tim Chen
2019-03-22 23:44 ` Tim Chen
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/16] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/16] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/16] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/16] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/16] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/16] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/16] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/16] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/16] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <20190402064612.GA46500@aaronlu>
2019-04-02 8:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-02 13:20 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-05 14:55 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:09 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-10 4:36 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-11 2:11 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11 3:05 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-11 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 19:58 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-15 16:59 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-16 13:43 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:38 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-10 15:01 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-04-11 0:11 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-19 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-19 23:16 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/16] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 15/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-02-21 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:28 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-04-04 8:31 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-06 1:36 ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 16/16] sched: Debug bits Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 17:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling Linus Torvalds
2019-02-18 20:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 0:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-19 15:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-02-22 12:17 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-22 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-22 19:26 ` Tim Chen
2019-02-26 8:26 ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-27 7:54 ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-21 2:53 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-21 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:44 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22 0:34 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22 12:45 ` Mel Gorman
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Mel Gorman
2019-03-08 19:44 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11 4:23 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-11 18:34 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11 23:33 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12 0:20 ` Greg Kerr
2019-03-12 0:47 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12 7:33 ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-12 7:45 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-13 5:55 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14 0:35 ` Tim Chen
2019-03-14 5:30 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14 6:07 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-03-18 6:56 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-12 19:07 ` Pawan Gupta
2019-03-26 7:32 ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-26 7:56 ` Aaron Lu
2019-02-19 22:07 ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-20 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-20 18:33 ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-22 14:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-07 22:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-20 18:43 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-01 2:54 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-14 15:28 ` Julien Desfossez
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=20190410150116.GI2490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.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).