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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 6A59DC433E1 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7BB20B1F for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728131AbgFPLIe (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:08:34 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:35570 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726692AbgFPLIc (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:08:32 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B10B1F1; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 04:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e107158-lin (e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.195.21]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 950D83F6CF; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 04:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:08:26 +0100 From: Qais Yousef To: Mel Gorman Cc: Dietmar Eggemann , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Randy Dunlap , Jonathan Corbet , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Luis Chamberlain , Kees Cook , Iurii Zaikin , Quentin Perret , Valentin Schneider , Patrick Bellasi , Pavan Kondeti , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chris.redpath@arm.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value Message-ID: <20200616110824.dgkkbyapn3io6wik@e107158-lin> References: <20200511154053.7822-1-qais.yousef@arm.com> <20200528132327.GB706460@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200528155800.yjrmx3hj72xreryh@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20200528161112.GI2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200529100806.GA3070@suse.de> <20200603094036.GF3070@suse.de> <20200603124112.w5stb7v2z3kzcze3@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20200604134042.GJ3070@suse.de> <20200611105811.5q5rga2cmy6ypq7e@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200611105811.5q5rga2cmy6ypq7e@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 06/11/20 11:58, Qais Yousef wrote: [...] > > nouclam nouclamp uclam uclamp uclamp.disable uclamp uclamp uclamp > nouclamp recompile uclamp uclamp2 uclamp.disabled opt opt2 opt.disabled > Hmean send-64 158.07 ( 0.00%) 156.99 * -0.68%* 163.83 * 3.65%* 160.97 * 1.83%* 163.93 * 3.71%* 159.62 * 0.98%* 161.79 * 2.36%* 161.14 * 1.94%* > Hmean send-128 314.86 ( 0.00%) 314.41 * -0.14%* 329.05 * 4.51%* 322.88 * 2.55%* 327.88 * 4.14%* 317.56 * 0.86%* 320.72 * 1.86%* 319.62 * 1.51%* > Hmean send-256 629.98 ( 0.00%) 625.78 * -0.67%* 652.67 * 3.60%* 639.98 * 1.59%* 643.99 * 2.22%* 631.96 * 0.31%* 635.75 * 0.92%* 644.10 * 2.24%* > Hmean send-1024 2465.04 ( 0.00%) 2452.29 * -0.52%* 2554.66 * 3.64%* 2509.60 * 1.81%* 2540.71 * 3.07%* 2495.82 * 1.25%* 2490.50 * 1.03%* 2509.86 * 1.82%* > Hmean send-2048 4717.57 ( 0.00%) 4713.17 * -0.09%* 4923.98 * 4.38%* 4811.01 * 1.98%* 4881.87 * 3.48%* 4793.82 * 1.62%* 4820.28 * 2.18%* 4824.60 * 2.27%* > Hmean send-3312 7412.33 ( 0.00%) 7433.42 * 0.28%* 7717.76 * 4.12%* 7522.97 * 1.49%* 7620.99 * 2.82%* 7522.89 * 1.49%* 7614.51 * 2.73%* 7568.51 * 2.11%* > Hmean send-4096 9021.55 ( 0.00%) 8988.71 * -0.36%* 9337.62 * 3.50%* 9075.49 * 0.60%* 9258.34 * 2.62%* 9117.17 * 1.06%* 9175.85 * 1.71%* 9079.50 * 0.64%* > Hmean send-8192 15370.36 ( 0.00%) 15467.63 * 0.63%* 15999.52 * 4.09%* 15467.80 * 0.63%* 15978.69 * 3.96%* 15619.84 * 1.62%* 15395.09 * 0.16%* 15779.73 * 2.66%* > Hmean send-16384 26512.35 ( 0.00%) 26498.18 * -0.05%* 26931.86 * 1.58%* 26513.18 * 0.00%* 26873.98 * 1.36%* 26456.38 * -0.21%* 26467.77 * -0.17%* 26975.04 * 1.75%* I have attempted a few other things after this. As pointed out above, with 5.7-rc7 I can't see a regression. The machine I'm testing on is 2 Sockets Xeon E5 2x10-Cores (40 CPUs). If I switch to 5.6, I can see a drop (performed each run twice) nouclamp nouclamp2 uclamp uclamp2 Hmean send-64 162.43 ( 0.00%) 161.46 * -0.60%* 157.84 * -2.82%* 158.11 * -2.66%* Hmean send-128 324.71 ( 0.00%) 323.88 * -0.25%* 314.78 * -3.06%* 314.94 * -3.01%* Hmean send-256 641.55 ( 0.00%) 640.22 * -0.21%* 628.67 * -2.01%* 631.79 * -1.52%* Hmean send-1024 2525.28 ( 0.00%) 2520.31 * -0.20%* 2448.26 * -3.05%* 2497.15 * -1.11%* Hmean send-2048 4836.14 ( 0.00%) 4827.47 * -0.18%* 4712.08 * -2.57%* 4757.70 * -1.62%* Hmean send-3312 7540.83 ( 0.00%) 7603.14 * 0.83%* 7425.45 * -1.53%* 7499.87 * -0.54%* Hmean send-4096 9124.53 ( 0.00%) 9224.90 * 1.10%* 8948.82 * -1.93%* 9087.20 * -0.41%* Hmean send-8192 15589.67 ( 0.00%) 15768.82 * 1.15%* 15486.35 * -0.66%* 15594.53 * 0.03%* Hmean send-16384 26386.47 ( 0.00%) 26683.64 * 1.13%* 25752.25 * -2.40%* 26609.64 * 0.85%* If I apply the 2 patches from my previous email, with uclamp enabled I see nouclamp nouclamp2 uclamp-opt uclamp-opt2 Hmean send-64 162.43 ( 0.00%) 161.46 * -0.60%* 159.84 * -1.60%* 160.79 * -1.01%* Hmean send-128 324.71 ( 0.00%) 323.88 * -0.25%* 318.44 * -1.93%* 321.88 * -0.87%* Hmean send-256 641.55 ( 0.00%) 640.22 * -0.21%* 633.54 * -1.25%* 640.43 * -0.17%* Hmean send-1024 2525.28 ( 0.00%) 2520.31 * -0.20%* 2497.47 * -1.10%* 2522.00 * -0.13%* Hmean send-2048 4836.14 ( 0.00%) 4827.47 * -0.18%* 4773.63 * -1.29%* 4825.31 * -0.22%* Hmean send-3312 7540.83 ( 0.00%) 7603.14 * 0.83%* 7512.92 * -0.37%* 7482.66 * -0.77%* Hmean send-4096 9124.53 ( 0.00%) 9224.90 * 1.10%* 9076.62 * -0.52%* 9175.58 * 0.56%* Hmean send-8192 15589.67 ( 0.00%) 15768.82 * 1.15%* 15466.02 * -0.79%* 15792.10 * 1.30%* Hmean send-16384 26386.47 ( 0.00%) 26683.64 * 1.13%* 26234.79 * -0.57%* 26459.95 * 0.28%* Which shows that on this machine, the system is slowed down due to bad D$ behavior on access to rq->uclamp[].bucket[] and p->uclamp{_rq}[]. If I disable uclamp using the static key I get nouclamp nouclamp2 uclamp-opt.disabled uclamp-opt.disabled2 Hmean send-64 162.43 ( 0.00%) 161.46 * -0.60%* 161.21 * -0.75%* 161.05 * -0.85%* Hmean send-128 324.71 ( 0.00%) 323.88 * -0.25%* 321.09 * -1.11%* 319.72 * -1.54%* Hmean send-256 641.55 ( 0.00%) 640.22 * -0.21%* 637.37 * -0.65%* 637.82 * -0.58%* Hmean send-1024 2525.28 ( 0.00%) 2520.31 * -0.20%* 2510.07 * -0.60%* 2504.99 * -0.80%* Hmean send-2048 4836.14 ( 0.00%) 4827.47 * -0.18%* 4795.29 * -0.84%* 4788.99 * -0.97%* Hmean send-3312 7540.83 ( 0.00%) 7603.14 * 0.83%* 7490.27 * -0.67%* 7498.56 * -0.56%* Hmean send-4096 9124.53 ( 0.00%) 9224.90 * 1.10%* 9108.73 * -0.17%* 9196.45 * 0.79%* Hmean send-8192 15589.67 ( 0.00%) 15768.82 * 1.15%* 15649.50 * 0.38%* 16101.68 * 3.28%* Hmean send-16384 26386.47 ( 0.00%) 26683.64 * 1.13%* 26435.38 * 0.19%* 27199.11 * 3.08%* I decided after this to see if this failure is observed all the way until 5.7-rc7. For 5.7-rc1 I get (comparing against 5.6-nouclamp) nouclamp nouclamp2 uclamp uclamp2 Hmean send-64 162.43 ( 0.00%) 161.46 * -0.60%* 155.56 * -4.23%* 156.72 * -3.52%* Hmean send-128 324.71 ( 0.00%) 323.88 * -0.25%* 311.68 * -4.01%* 312.63 * -3.72%* Hmean send-256 641.55 ( 0.00%) 640.22 * -0.21%* 616.03 * -3.98%* 620.83 * -3.23%* Hmean send-1024 2525.28 ( 0.00%) 2520.31 * -0.20%* 2441.92 * -3.30%* 2433.83 * -3.62%* Hmean send-2048 4836.14 ( 0.00%) 4827.47 * -0.18%* 4698.42 * -2.85%* 4682.22 * -3.18%* Hmean send-3312 7540.83 ( 0.00%) 7603.14 * 0.83%* 7379.37 * -2.14%* 7354.82 * -2.47%* Hmean send-4096 9124.53 ( 0.00%) 9224.90 * 1.10%* 8797.21 * -3.59%* 8815.65 * -3.39%* Hmean send-8192 15589.67 ( 0.00%) 15768.82 * 1.15%* 15009.19 * -3.72%* 15065.16 * -3.36%* Hmean send-16384 26386.47 ( 0.00%) 26683.64 * 1.13%* 25829.20 * -2.11%* 25783.17 * -2.29%* For 5.7-rc2, the overhead disappears again (against 5.6-nouclamp) nouclamp nouclamp2 uclamp uclamp2 Hmean send-64 162.43 ( 0.00%) 161.46 * -0.60%* 162.97 * 0.34%* 163.31 * 0.54%* Hmean send-128 324.71 ( 0.00%) 323.88 * -0.25%* 323.94 * -0.24%* 325.74 * 0.32%* Hmean send-256 641.55 ( 0.00%) 640.22 * -0.21%* 641.82 * 0.04%* 645.11 * 0.56%* Hmean send-1024 2525.28 ( 0.00%) 2520.31 * -0.20%* 2522.74 * -0.10%* 2535.63 * 0.41%* Hmean send-2048 4836.14 ( 0.00%) 4827.47 * -0.18%* 4836.74 * 0.01%* 4838.62 * 0.05%* Hmean send-3312 7540.83 ( 0.00%) 7603.14 * 0.83%* 7635.31 * 1.25%* 7613.91 * 0.97%* Hmean send-4096 9124.53 ( 0.00%) 9224.90 * 1.10%* 9198.58 * 0.81%* 9161.53 * 0.41%* Hmean send-8192 15589.67 ( 0.00%) 15768.82 * 1.15%* 15804.47 * 1.38%* 15755.91 * 1.07%* Hmean send-16384 26386.47 ( 0.00%) 26683.64 * 1.13%* 26649.29 * 1.00%* 26677.46 * 1.10%* I stopped here tbh. I thought maybe numa scheduling is making the uclamp accesses more expensive in certain patterns, so I tried with numactl -N 0 (using 5.7-rc1) nouclamp nouclamp2 uclamp-N0-1 uclamp-N0-2 Hmean send-64 162.43 ( 0.00%) 161.46 * -0.60%* 156.26 * -3.80%* 156.00 * -3.96%* Hmean send-128 324.71 ( 0.00%) 323.88 * -0.25%* 312.20 * -3.85%* 312.94 * -3.63%* Hmean send-256 641.55 ( 0.00%) 640.22 * -0.21%* 620.29 * -3.31%* 619.25 * -3.48%* Hmean send-1024 2525.28 ( 0.00%) 2520.31 * -0.20%* 2437.59 * -3.47%* 2433.94 * -3.62%* Hmean send-2048 4836.14 ( 0.00%) 4827.47 * -0.18%* 4671.28 * -3.41%* 4714.49 * -2.52%* Hmean send-3312 7540.83 ( 0.00%) 7603.14 * 0.83%* 7355.86 * -2.45%* 7387.51 * -2.03%* Hmean send-4096 9124.53 ( 0.00%) 9224.90 * 1.10%* 8793.02 * -3.63%* 8883.88 * -2.64%* Hmean send-8192 15589.67 ( 0.00%) 15768.82 * 1.15%* 14898.76 * -4.43%* 14958.19 * -4.05%* Hmean send-16384 26386.47 ( 0.00%) 26683.64 * 1.13%* 25745.40 * -2.43%* 25800.01 * -2.22%* And it had no effect. Interesting Lukasz can see an improvement if he tries something similar on his machine. Did we have any previous history of code/data layout affecting the performance of the hot path in the past? On the juno board (octa core big.LITTLE arm paltform), I could make the overhead disappear with a simple code shuffle (for perf bench sched pipe). I have tried putting the rq->uclamp[].bucket[] structures into their own PERCPU variable since the rq is read by many cpus and thought that might lead to bad cache patterns since uclamp are mostly read by the owning cpus, but no luck with this approach. I am working on a proper static key patch now that disables uclamp by default and only enables it if the userspace attemps to modify any of the knobs it provides, then we switch it on and keep it on. Testing it at the moment. Thanks -- Qais Yousef