All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree?
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 01:59:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <877A43A3-AC8F-4D7C-88E4-8E3D36B1DAFA@amacapital.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170906082520.xgvo3hewje7jvdyo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>



> On Sep 6, 2017, at 1:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:13:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I'm running e7d0c41ecc2e372a81741a30894f556afec24315 from Linus' tree
>> today, and I'm seeing abysmal scheduler performance.  Running make -j4
>> ends up with all the tasks on CPU 3 most of the time (on my
>> 4-logical-thread laptop).  taskset -c 0 whatever puts whatever on CPU
>> 0, but plain while true; do true; done puts the infinite loop on CPU 3
>> right along with the make -j4 tasks.
>> 
>> This is on Fedora 26, and I don't think I'm doing anything weird.
>> systemd has enabled the cpu controller, but it doesn't seem to have
>> configured anything or created any non-root cgroups.
>> 
>> Just a heads up.  I haven't tried to diagnose it at all.
> 
> "make O=defconfig-build -j80" results in:
> 
> %Cpu0  : 90.7 us,  9.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu1  : 88.7 us, 11.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu2  : 93.5 us,  6.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu3  : 86.8 us, 13.2 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu4  : 89.7 us, 10.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu5  : 96.3 us,  3.7 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu6  : 95.3 us,  4.7 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu7  : 94.4 us,  5.6 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu8  : 91.7 us,  8.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu9  : 94.3 us,  5.7 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu10 : 90.7 us,  9.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu11 : 96.2 us,  3.8 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu12 : 91.5 us,  8.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu13 : 90.6 us,  9.4 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu14 : 97.2 us,  2.8 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu15 : 89.7 us, 10.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu16 : 90.6 us,  9.4 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu17 : 93.4 us,  6.6 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu18 : 90.6 us,  9.4 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu19 : 92.5 us,  7.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu20 : 94.4 us,  5.6 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu21 : 90.7 us,  9.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu22 : 92.5 us,  7.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu23 : 90.7 us,  9.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu24 : 91.6 us,  8.4 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu25 : 93.5 us,  6.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu26 : 93.4 us,  5.7 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.9 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu27 : 92.5 us,  7.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu28 : 92.5 us,  7.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu29 : 88.8 us, 11.2 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu30 : 90.6 us,  9.4 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu31 : 93.5 us,  6.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu32 : 93.5 us,  6.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu33 : 93.4 us,  6.6 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu34 : 90.7 us,  9.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu35 : 93.5 us,  6.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu36 : 90.7 us,  9.3 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu37 : 97.2 us,  2.8 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu38 : 92.5 us,  7.5 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu39 : 92.6 us,  7.4 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
> 
> Do you have a .config somewhere?

I'll attach tomorrow.  I'll also test in a VM.

> Are you running with the systemd? Is it
> creating cpu cgroups?

Yes systemd, no cgroups.

> 
> Any specifics on your setup?

On further fiddling, I only see this after a suspend and resume cycle.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-06  8:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-06  5:13 Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Andy Lutomirski
2017-09-06  8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-06  8:59   ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2017-09-06  9:03     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-06 16:14       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-07  6:15         ` Mike Galbraith
2017-09-07  7:31           ` Ingo Molnar
2017-09-07  9:13           ` [PATCH] sched/cpuset/pm: Fix cpuset vs suspend-resume Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-07  9:26             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-07 10:54               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-09-07 20:38               ` Tejun Heo
2017-09-07 10:33             ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched/cpuset/pm: Fix cpuset vs. suspend-resume bugs tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-06  9:15 ` Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Chris Wilson
2017-09-06  9:24   ` Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]     ` <150469312649.28581.17626550155735691534@mail.alporthouse.com>
2017-09-06 10:44       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-06 10:51         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-07  8:16           ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched/fair: Fix wake_affine_llc() balancing rules tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra

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=877A43A3-AC8F-4D7C-88E4-8E3D36B1DAFA@amacapital.net \
    --to=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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.