Re: [PATCH 00/13] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer v6

From: Jirka Hladky <jhladky@redhat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer v6
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:24:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE4VaGCfDpu0EuvHNHwDGbR-HNBSAHY=yu3DJ33drKgymMTTOw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200312214736.GA3818@techsingularity.net>

> I'll continue thinking about it but whatever chance there is of
> improving it while keeping CPU balancing, NUMA balancing and wake affine
> consistent with each other, I think there is no chance with the
> inconsistent logic used in the vanilla code :(

Thank you, Mel!

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:47 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:54:29PM +0100, Jirka Hladky wrote:
> > >
> > > find it unlikely that is common because who acquires such a large machine
> > > and then uses a tiny percentage of it.
> >
> >
> > I generally agree, but I also want to make a point that AMD made these
> > large systems much more affordable with their EPYC CPUs. The 8 NUMA node
> > server we are using costs under $8k.
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is somewhat of a dilemma. Without the series, the load balancer and
> > > NUMA balancer use very different criteria on what should happen and
> > > results are not stable.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, I see instabilities also for the series. This is again for
> > the sp_C test with 8 threads executed on dual-socket AMD 7351 (EPYC Naples)
> > server with 8 NUMA nodes. With the series applied, the runtime varies from
> > 86 to 165 seconds! Could we do something about it? The runtime of 86
> > seconds would be acceptable. If we could stabilize this case and get
> > consistent runtime around 80 seconds, the problem would be gone.
> >
> > Do you experience the similar instability of results on your HW for sp_C
> > with low thread counts?
> >
>
> I saw something similar but observed that it depended on whether the
> worker tasks got spread wide or not which partially came down to luck.
> The question is if it's possible to pick a point where we spread wide
> and can recover quickly enough when tasks need to remain close without
> knowledge of the future. Putting a balancing limit on tasks that
> recently woke would be one option but that could also cause persistent
> improper balancing for tasks that wake frequently.
>
> > Runtime with this series applied:
> >  $ grep "Time in seconds" *log
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop01.log: Time in seconds =
> >   125.73
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop02.log: Time in seconds =
> >    87.54
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop03.log: Time in seconds =
> >    86.93
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop04.log: Time in seconds =
> >   165.98
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop05.log: Time in seconds =
> >   114.78
> >
> > For comparison, here are vanilla kernel results:
> > $ grep "Time in seconds" *log
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop01.log: Time in seconds =
> >    59.83
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop02.log: Time in seconds =
> >    67.72
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop03.log: Time in seconds =
> >    63.62
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop04.log: Time in seconds =
> >    55.01
> > sp.C.x.defaultRun.008threads.loop05.log: Time in seconds =
> >    65.20
> >
> >
> >
> > > In *general*, I found that the series won a lot more than it lost across
> > > a spread of workloads and machines but unfortunately it's also an area
> > > where counter-examples can be found.
> >
> >
> > OK, fair enough. I understand that there will always be trade-offs when
> > making changes to scheduler like this. And I agree that cases with higher
> > system load (where is series is helpful) outweigh the performance drops for
> > low threads counts. I was hoping that it would be possible to improve the
> > small threads results while keeping the gains for other scenarios:-)  But
> > let's be realistic - I would be happy to fix the extreme case mentioned
> > above. The other issues where performance drop is about 20% are OK with me
> > and are outweighed by the gains for different scenarios.
> >
>
> I'll continue thinking about it but whatever chance there is of
> improving it while keeping CPU balancing, NUMA balancing and wake affine
> consistent with each other, I think there is no chance with the
> inconsistent logic used in the vanilla code :(
>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs
>

-- 
-Jirka