From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Gilles.Muller@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:20:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201021112038.GC32041@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1603211879-1064-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 06:37:59PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On a thread wakeup, the change [1] from runnable load average to load
> average for comparing candidate cores means that recent short-running
> daemons on the core where a thread ran previously can be considered to
> have a higher load than the core performing the wakeup, even when the
> core where the thread ran previously is currently idle. This can
> cause a thread to migrate, taking the place of some other thread that
> is about to wake up, and so on. To avoid unnecessary migrations,
> extend wake_affine_idle to check whether the core where the thread
> previously ran is currently idle, and if so return that core as the
> target.
>
> [1] commit 11f10e5420f6ce ("sched/fair: Use load instead of runnable
> load in wakeup path")
>
> This particularly has an impact when using passive (intel_cpufreq)
> power management, where kworkers run every 0.004 seconds on all cores,
> increasing the likelihood that an idle core will be considered to have
> a load.
>
> The following numbers were obtained with the benchmarking tool
> hyperfine (https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine) on the NAS parallel
> benchmarks (https://www.nas.nasa.gov/publications/npb.html). The
> tests were run on an 80-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8870 v4 @
> 2.10GHz. Active (intel_pstate) and passive (intel_cpufreq) power
> management were used. Times are in seconds. All experiments use all
> 160 hardware threads.
>
> v5.9/active v5.9+patch/active
> bt.C.c 24.725724+-0.962340 23.349608+-1.607214
> lu.C.x 29.105952+-4.804203 25.249052+-5.561617
> sp.C.x 31.220696+-1.831335 30.227760+-2.429792
> ua.C.x 26.606118+-1.767384 25.778367+-1.263850
>
> v5.9/passive v5.9+patch/passive
> bt.C.c 25.330360+-1.028316 23.544036+-1.020189
> lu.C.x 35.872659+-4.872090 23.719295+-3.883848
> sp.C.x 32.141310+-2.289541 29.125363+-0.872300
> ua.C.x 29.024597+-1.667049 25.728888+-1.539772
>
> On the smaller data sets (A and B) and on the other NAS benchmarks
> there is no impact on performance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
I suspect that the benefit of this patch is due to avoiding the overhead
of wake_affine_weight() check because the following check exists in
select_idle_sibling
/*
* If the previous CPU is cache affine and idle, don't be stupid:
*/
if (prev != target && cpus_share_cache(prev, target) &&
(available_idle_cpu(prev) || sched_idle_cpu(prev)))
return prev;
Still, the concept makes some sense to avoid wake_affine_weight but look
at the earlier part of wake_affine_idle()
if (available_idle_cpu(this_cpu) && cpus_share_cache(this_cpu, prev_cpu))
return available_idle_cpu(prev_cpu) ? prev_cpu : this_cpu;
This thing is almost completely useless because this_cpu is only going to
be idle if it's a wakeup from interrupt context when the CPU was otherwise
idle *but* it takes care to only use the CPU if this and prev share LLC.
The patch as it stands may leave a task on a remote node when it should
have been pulled local to the waker because prev happened to be idle. This
is not guaranteed because a node could have multiple LLCs and prev is
still appropriate but that's a different problem entirely and requires
much deeper surgery. Still, not pulling a task from a remote node is
a change in expected behaviour. While it's possible that NUMA domains
will not even reach this path, it depends on the NUMA distance as can
be seen in sd_init() for the setting of SD_WAKE_AFFINE so I think the
cpus_share_cache check is necessary.
I think it would be more appropriate to rework that block that checks
this_cpu to instead check if the CPUs share cache first and then return one
of them (preference to prev based on the comment above it about avoiding
a migration) if either one is idle.
I see Vincent already agreed with the patch so I could be wrong. Vincent,
did I miss something stupid?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-21 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-20 16:37 [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 7:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 11:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 12:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 11:20 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2020-10-21 11:56 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 12:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 12:42 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 18:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 18:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 19:47 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 20:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 18:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 4:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 10:59 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 11:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 12:02 ` default cpufreq gov, was: " Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 12:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 14:52 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 14:58 ` Colin Ian King
2020-10-22 15:12 ` Phil Auld
2020-10-22 16:35 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 17:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 20:32 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 20:39 ` Phil Auld
2020-10-22 15:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 15:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 16:29 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 20:10 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2020-10-22 20:16 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2020-10-23 7:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-23 17:46 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-10-26 19:52 ` Fontenot, Nathan
2020-10-22 15:45 ` A L
2020-10-22 15:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-23 5:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 16:23 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-23 6:29 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 11:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-23 15:15 ` [PATCH v2] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-27 3:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-27 11:11 ` default cpufreq gov, was: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core Qais Yousef
2020-10-27 11:26 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-10-27 11:42 ` Qais Yousef
2020-10-27 11:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 6:24 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 15:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-27 3:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 11:21 ` AW: " Walter Harms
2020-10-21 12:28 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 12:47 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 12:56 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 13:18 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 13:24 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:08 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 15:18 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 15:33 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 17:00 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 17:39 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 13:48 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:26 ` Mel Gorman
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=20201021112038.GC32041@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=Gilles.Muller@inria.fr \
--cc=Julia.Lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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 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).