LinuxPPC-Dev Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Ihor Pasichnyk <Ihor.Pasichnyk@ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/vcpu: Assume dedicated processors as non-preempt
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:58:13 -0500
Message-ID: <319b167f-f400-31a2-5c7f-5cb8cd3cbb52@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191204134459.22470-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 12/4/19 8:44 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> With commit 247f2f6f3c70 ("sched/core: Don't schedule threads on pre-empted
> vCPUs"), scheduler avoids preempted vCPUs to schedule tasks on wakeup.
> This leads to wrong choice of CPU, which in-turn leads to larger wakeup
> latencies. Eventually, it leads to performance regression in latency
> sensitive benchmarks like soltp, schbench etc.
>
> On Powerpc, vcpu_is_preempted only looks at yield_count. If the
> yield_count is odd, the vCPU is assumed to be preempted. However
> yield_count is increased whenever LPAR enters CEDE state. So any CPU
> that has entered CEDE state is assumed to be preempted.
>
> Even if vCPU of dedicated LPAR is preempted/donated, it should have
> right of first-use since they are suppose to own the vCPU.
>
> On a Power9 System with 32 cores
>  # lscpu
> Architecture:        ppc64le
> Byte Order:          Little Endian
> CPU(s):              128
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-127
> Thread(s) per core:  8
> Core(s) per socket:  1
> Socket(s):           16
> NUMA node(s):        2
> Model:               2.2 (pvr 004e 0202)
> Model name:          POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> Hypervisor vendor:   pHyp
> Virtualization type: para
> L1d cache:           32K
> L1i cache:           32K
> L2 cache:            512K
> L3 cache:            10240K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s):   0-63
> NUMA node1 CPU(s):   64-127
>  
>
>   # perf stat -a -r 5 ./schbench
> v5.4				                v5.4 + patch
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 47                           	50.0000th: 33
> 	74.0000th: 64                           	75.0000th: 44
> 	89.0000th: 76                           	90.0000th: 50
> 	94.0000th: 83                           	95.0000th: 53
> 	*98.0000th: 103                         	*99.0000th: 57
> 	98.5000th: 2124                         	99.5000th: 59
> 	98.9000th: 7976                         	99.9000th: 83
> 	min=-1, max=10519                       	min=0, max=117
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 45                           	50.0000th: 34
> 	74.0000th: 61                           	75.0000th: 45
> 	89.0000th: 70                           	90.0000th: 52
> 	94.0000th: 77                           	95.0000th: 56
> 	*98.0000th: 504                         	*99.0000th: 62
> 	98.5000th: 4012                         	99.5000th: 64
> 	98.9000th: 8168                         	99.9000th: 79
> 	min=-1, max=14500                       	min=0, max=123
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 48                           	50.0000th: 35
> 	74.0000th: 65                           	75.0000th: 47
> 	89.0000th: 76                           	90.0000th: 55
> 	94.0000th: 82                           	95.0000th: 59
> 	*98.0000th: 1098                        	*99.0000th: 67
> 	98.5000th: 3988                         	99.5000th: 71
> 	98.9000th: 9360                         	99.9000th: 98
> 	min=-1, max=19283                       	min=0, max=137
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 46                           	50.0000th: 35
> 	74.0000th: 63                           	75.0000th: 46
> 	89.0000th: 73                           	90.0000th: 53
> 	94.0000th: 78                           	95.0000th: 57
> 	*98.0000th: 113                         	*99.0000th: 63
> 	98.5000th: 2316                         	99.5000th: 65
> 	98.9000th: 7704                         	99.9000th: 83
> 	min=-1, max=17976                       	min=0, max=139
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 46                           	50.0000th: 34
> 	74.0000th: 62                           	75.0000th: 46
> 	89.0000th: 73                           	90.0000th: 53
> 	94.0000th: 79                           	95.0000th: 57
> 	*98.0000th: 97                          	*99.0000th: 64
> 	98.5000th: 1398                         	99.5000th: 70
> 	98.9000th: 8136                         	99.9000th: 100
> 	min=-1, max=10008                       	min=0, max=142
>
> Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (4 runs):
>
> context-switches       42,604 ( +-  0.87% )       45,397 ( +-  0.25% )
> cpu-migrations          0,195 ( +-  2.70% )          230 ( +-  7.23% )
> page-faults            16,783 ( +- 14.87% )       16,781 ( +-  9.77% )
>
> Waiman Long suggested using static_keys.
>
> Reported-by: Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Ihor Pasichnyk <Ihor.Pasichnyk@ibm.com>
> Cc: Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ihor Pasichnyk <Ihor.Pasichnyk@ibm.com>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 5 +++--
>  arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c              | 4 ++++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index e9a960e28f3c..866f6ca0427a 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -35,11 +35,12 @@
>  #define LOCK_TOKEN	1
>  #endif
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES) && defined(CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR)
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(shared_processor);
>  #define vcpu_is_preempted vcpu_is_preempted
>  static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>  {
> -	if (!firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_SPLPAR))
> +	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&shared_processor))
>  		return false;
>  	return !!(be32_to_cpu(lppaca_of(cpu).yield_count) & 1);
>  }
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index 50d68d21ddcc..ffb971f3a63c 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -1568,9 +1568,13 @@ int prrn_is_enabled(void)
>  	return prrn_enabled;
>  }
>  
> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(shared_processor);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(shared_processor);
> +
>  void __init shared_proc_topology_init(void)
>  {
>  	if (lppaca_shared_proc(get_lppaca())) {
> +		static_branch_enable(&shared_processor);
>  		bitmap_fill(cpumask_bits(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask),
>  			    nr_cpumask_bits);
>  		numa_update_cpu_topology(false);

The patch looks good to me.

Just a minor nit. According to the Kconfig file, PPC_SPLPAR depends on
PPC_PSERIES. IOW, when PPC_SPLPAR is defined, PPC_PSERIES must have been
defined. So you can probably drop CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES. The same is true
for patch 2.

Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>


  parent reply index

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-04 13:44 Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-04 13:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/shared: Use static key to detect shared processor Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-04 16:18   ` [PATCH v2 " Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-04 15:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/vcpu: Assume dedicated processors as non-preempt Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-04 16:58 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-12-05  5:07 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2019-12-05  7:08 ` Juri Lelli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=319b167f-f400-31a2-5c7f-5cb8cd3cbb52@redhat.com \
    --to=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=Ihor.Pasichnyk@ibm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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

LinuxPPC-Dev Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/0 linuxppc-dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linuxppc-dev linuxppc-dev/ https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev \
		linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
	public-inbox-index linuxppc-dev

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git