Re: [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Multi-LLC select_idle_sibling()

["Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>]

Hello Peter,

On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:47:07AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> On 6/1/2023 8:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 02:00:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 01:56:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 01:13:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This DeathStarBench thing seems to suggest that scanning up to 4 CCDs
> >>>> isn't too much of a bother; so perhaps something like so?
> >>>>
> >>>> (on top of tip/sched/core from just a few hours ago, as I had to 'fix'
> >>>> this patch and force pushed the thing)
> >>>>
> >>>> And yeah, random hacks and heuristics here :/ Does there happen to be
> >>>> additional topology that could aid us here? Does the CCD fabric itself
> >>>> have a distance metric we can use?
> >>>
> >>>   https://www.anandtech.com/show/16529/amd-epyc-milan-review/4
> >>>
> >>> Specifically:
> >>>
> >>>   https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16529/Bounce-7763.png
> >>>
> >>> That seems to suggest there are some very minor distance effects in the
> >>> CCD fabric. I didn't read the article too closely, but you'll note that
> >>> the first 4 CCDs have inter-CCD latency < 100 while the rest has > 100.
> >>>
> >>> Could you also test on a Zen2 Epyc, does that require nr=8 instead of 4?
> >>> Should we perhaps write it like: 32 / llc_size ?
> >>>
> >>> The Zen2 picture:
> >>>
> >>>   https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16315/Bounce-7742.png
> >>>
> >>> Shows a more pronounced CCD fabric topology, you can really see the 2
> >>> CCX inside the CCD but also there's two ligher green squares around the
> >>> CCDs themselves.
> >>
> >> I can't seem to find pretty pictures for Zen4 Epyc; what does that want?
> >> That's even bigger at 96/8=12 LLCs afaict.
> > 
> > Going by random pictures on the interweb again, it looks like this Zen4
> > thing wants either 2 groups of 6 each, or 4 groups of 3.
>

Yes, this is what the topology looks like

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 
|                                                                                 |
|   ----------- ----------- -----------     ----------- ----------- -----------   |
|   |(0-7)    | |(8-15)   | |(16-23)  |     |(48-55)  | |(56-63)  | |(64-71)  |   |
|   | LLC0    | | LLC1    | | LLC2    |     | LLC6    | | LLC7    | | LLC8    |   |
|   |(96-103) | |(104-111)| |(112-119)|     |(144-151)| |(152-159)| |(160-167)|   |
|   ----------- ----------- -----------     ----------- ----------- -----------   |
|                                                                                 |
|                                                                                 |
|   ----------- ----------- -----------     ----------- ----------- -----------   |
|   |(24-31)  | |(32-39)  | |(40-47)  |     |(72-79)  | |(80-87)  | |(88-95)  |   |
|   | LLC3    | | LLC4    | | LLC5    |     | LLC9    | | LLC10   | | LLC11   |   |
|   |(120-127)| |(128-135)| |(136-143)|     |(168-175)| |(176-183)| |(184-191)|   |
|   ----------- ----------- -----------     ----------- ----------- -----------   |
|                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|


> I would think it is the latter since NPS4 does that but let me go verify.

2 groups of 6 each is the vertical split which is NPS2.

4 groups of 3 each is the vertical and horizontal split, which is
NPS4.

In both these cases, currently the domain hierarchy

SMT --> MC --> NODE --> NUMA

where the NODE will be the parent of MC and be the 2nd level wakeup domain.

If we define CLS to be the group with 3 LLCs, which becomes the parent
of the MC domain, then, the hierarchy would be

NPS1 : SMT --> MC --> CLS --> DIE
NPS2 : SMT --> MC --> CLS --> NODE --> NUMA
NPS4 : SMT --> MC --> CLS --> NUMA

NPS2 will have 5 domains within a single socket. Oh well!

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.