From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7000C433DB for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:24:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E76723AC0 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:24:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7E76723AC0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=gZh3gFSaE5WVOekFJPx5s61X1H+WXz2xz426ZrlA/MA=; b=spedHzzpMgR8CZvkZG+SpeNgf kHPWkfppet6jymAR3RU4ct4LqE1YsDMUlQJ1JIadmLJAFYwSYTNBcPoos1+e2xRR6yQNjk/1Nk6A8 dx4T9OOALxmeaodheOBn/rL6Uj3xJJW+P1mSxP79PQt9PR8YRomBe/+AKU61UdPxj69EKj9N0bEej AY07IB0iMKL9UW3tCj5m3Khu4FmMSn9Ikenx33H2+NS0rx2KBJtMPI7+9HGamk6DuHzgJH+60zkvl c1nS3eCzLS0S8nlB3TpWppFgAJOLdNCWP/EO/PlH93pxVJA9l8YUx6EIdjaGwPLEbaCF4X5054zyI hlz5QOokA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kxyHX-0003O1-WD; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 20:22:48 +0000 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kxyHV-0003Mu-3U for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 20:22:46 +0000 IronPort-SDR: Dk5trOdhcHWTuAbk/bGZlilSFnZgpUktE7DHUkB5ZHChZ4cgvc7Deook1uHImAT/Bsdnr9KmMe EMkyz/GSBd/g== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9858"; a="239200036" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,332,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="239200036" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jan 2021 12:22:42 -0800 IronPort-SDR: qkTrf23l5JW13Vmuj4KCq4mHK3AZV+A/sIyb8Wpyuf8i9pwYTSRgCws/RgkJtEeahgU0TChbaQ Hu8qPjKuWs1Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,332,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="380241453" Received: from schen9-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.252.142.111]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jan 2021 12:22:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler To: Morten Rasmussen References: <20210106083026.40444-1-song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com> <737932c9-846a-0a6b-08b8-e2d2d95b67ce@linux.intel.com> <20210108151241.GA47324@e123083-lin> From: Tim Chen Message-ID: <99c07bdf-02d1-153a-bd1e-2f4200cc67c5@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:22:41 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210108151241.GA47324@e123083-lin> Content-Language: en-US X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210108_152245_376729_9CAC1C6C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.17 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, xuwei5@huawei.com, will@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, aubrey.li@linux.intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, valentin.schneider@arm.com, lenb@kernel.org, linuxarm@openeuler.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Barry Song , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, tiantao6@hisilicon.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 1/8/21 7:12 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 03:16:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: >> On 1/6/21 12:30 AM, Barry Song wrote: >>> ARM64 server chip Kunpeng 920 has 6 clusters in each NUMA node, and each >>> cluster has 4 cpus. All clusters share L3 cache data while each cluster >>> has local L3 tag. On the other hand, each cluster will share some >>> internal system bus. This means cache is much more affine inside one cluster >>> than across clusters. >> >> There is a similar need for clustering in x86. Some x86 cores could share L2 caches that >> is similar to the cluster in Kupeng 920 (e.g. on Jacobsville there are 6 clusters >> of 4 Atom cores, each cluster sharing a separate L2, and 24 cores sharing L3). >> Having a sched domain at the L2 cluster helps spread load among >> L2 domains. This will reduce L2 cache contention and help with >> performance for low to moderate load scenarios. > > IIUC, you are arguing for the exact opposite behaviour, i.e. balancing > between L2 caches while Barry is after consolidating tasks within the > boundaries of a L3 tag cache. One helps cache utilization, the other > communication latency between tasks. Am I missing something? > > IMHO, we need some numbers on the table to say which way to go. Looking > at just benchmarks of one type doesn't show that this is a good idea in > general. > I think it is going to depend on the workload. If there are dependent tasks that communicate with one another, putting them together in the same cluster will be the right thing to do to reduce communication costs. On the other hand, if the tasks are independent, putting them together on the same cluster will increase resource contention and spreading them out will be better. Any thoughts on what is the right clustering "tag" to use to clump related tasks together? Cgroup? Pid? Tasks with same mm? Tim _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel