* Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core @ 2016-06-28 23:15 Jirka Hladky 2016-06-29 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Jirka Hladky @ 2016-06-28 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Kamil Kolakowski, Ingo Molnar, jplozi, Alexandra Fedorova, Baptiste Lepers [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3822 bytes --] Hello, on NUMA enabled server equipped with 4 Intel E5-4610 v2 CPUs we observe following performance degradation: Runtime to run "lu.C.x" test from NAS Parallel Benchmarks after booting the kernel: real 1m57.834s user 113m51.520s Then we disable and re-enable one core: echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online and rerun the same test. Runtime is now degraded (by 40% for user time and by 30% for the real (wall-clock) time) using all 64 cores real 2m47.746s user 160m46.109s The issue was first reported in "The Linux Scheduler: a Decade of Wasted Cores" paper http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~sasha/papers/eurosys16-final29.pdf https://github.com/jplozi/wastedcores/issues/1 How to reproduce the issue: A) Get benchmark and compile it: 1) wget http://www.nas.nasa.gov/assets/npb/NPB3.3.1.tar.gz 2) tar zxvf NPB3.3.1.tar.gz 3) cd ~/NPB3.3.1/NPB3.3-OMP/config/ 4) ln -sf NAS.samples/make.def.gcc_x86 make.def (assuming using gcc compiler) 5) ln -sf NAS.samples/suite.def.lu suite.def 6) cd ~/NPB3.3.1/NPB3.3-OMP 7) make suite 8) You should have now in directory ~/NPB3.3.1/NPB3.3-OMP/bin benchmarks lu.*. The binaries are alphabetically sorted by runtime with "lu.A.x" having the shortest runtime. B) Reproducing the issue (see also attached script) Remark: we have done the tests with autogroup disabled sysctl -w kernel.sched_autogroup_enabled=0 to avoid this issue on 4.7 kernel: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120481 The test was conducted on NUMA server with 4 nodes and using all available 64 cores. 1) (time bin/lu.C.x) |& tee $(uname -r)_lu.C.x.log_before_reenable_kernel.sched_autogroup_enabled=0 2) disable and re-enable one core echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online 3) (time bin/lu.C.x) |& tee $(uname -r)_lu.C.x.log_after_reenable_kernel.sched_autogroup_enabled=0 grep "real\|user" *lu.C* You will see significant difference in both real and user time. Regarding to the authors of the paper the root cause of the problem is a missing call to regenerate domains inside NUMA nodes after re-enabling CPU. The problem was introduced in 3.19 kernel. The authors of paper has proposed a patch which applies to 4.1 kernel. Here is the link: https://github.com/jplozi/wastedcores/blob/master/patches/missing_sched_domains_linux_4.1.patch ===========For the completeness here are the results with 4.6 kernel=========== AFTER BOOT real 1m31.639s user 89m24.657s AFTER core has been disabled and re-enabled real 2m44.566s user 157m59.814s Please notice that 4.6 kernel problem is much more visible than with 4.7 rc5 kernel. At the same time, 4.6 kernel delivers much better performance after boot than 4.7 rc5 kernel which might indicate that another problem is in play. ================================================================= I have also tested kernel provided by Peter Zijlstra on Friday, June 24th which provides fix for https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120481. It does not fix this issue and kernel right after boot performs worse than 4.6 kernel right after boot so we may in fact face two problems here. ========Results with 4.7.0-02548776ded1185e6e16ad0a475481e982741ee9 kernel===== git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git sched/urgent $ git rev-parse HEAD 02548776ded1185e6e16ad0a475481e982741ee9 AFTER BOOT real 1m58.549s user 113m31.448s AFTER core has been disabled and re-enabled real 2m35.930s user 148m20.795s ================================================================= Thanks a lot! Jirka PS: I have opened this BZ to track this issue Bug 121121 - Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121121 [-- Attachment #2: reproduce.sh --] [-- Type: application/x-sh, Size: 731 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core 2016-06-28 23:15 Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core Jirka Hladky @ 2016-06-29 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra [not found] ` <CAE4VaGBO0soGf0pfdduxmuAxU5hCN3grha8DOa5HEgT5Lt9HVQ@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2016-06-29 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jirka Hladky Cc: linux-kernel, Kamil Kolakowski, Ingo Molnar, jplozi, Alexandra Fedorova, Baptiste Lepers On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:15:17AM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote: > Hello, > > on NUMA enabled server equipped with 4 Intel E5-4610 v2 CPUs we > observe following performance degradation: Do you have cluster on die enabled on that machine? If you disable it, does it still reproduce? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAE4VaGBO0soGf0pfdduxmuAxU5hCN3grha8DOa5HEgT5Lt9HVQ@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core [not found] ` <CAE4VaGBO0soGf0pfdduxmuAxU5hCN3grha8DOa5HEgT5Lt9HVQ@mail.gmail.com> @ 2016-06-29 9:58 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-07-12 9:04 ` Jirka Hladky 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2016-06-29 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jirka Hladky Cc: linux-kernel, Kamil Kolakowski, Ingo Molnar, Jean-Pierre Lozi, Alexandra Fedorova, Baptiste Lepers On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:47:56AM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I think Cluster on Die technology was introduced in Haswell generation. The > server I'm using is equipped with 4x Intel E5-4610 v2 (Ivy Bridge). I have > double checked the BIOS and there is no cluster on die setting. Oh right, that's E5v3.. > The authors of the paper have reported the issue on AMD Bulldozer CPU which > also does not have COD technology. The Opteron 6272, which they use, is an Interlagos, that has something similar in that each package contains two nodes. And their patch touches exactly that part of the x86 topo setup, the match_die() && !same_node() condition, IOW same package, different node. That's not a path an Intel chip would trigger without COD support. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core 2016-06-29 9:58 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2016-07-12 9:04 ` Jirka Hladky 2016-07-28 21:48 ` Jirka Hladky 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Jirka Hladky @ 2016-07-12 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel, Kamil Kolakowski, Ingo Molnar, Jean-Pierre Lozi, Alexandra Fedorova, Baptiste Lepers Hi Peter, have you a chance to look into this? Is there anything I can do to help you to fix it? Thanks a lot! Jirka On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:47:56AM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> I think Cluster on Die technology was introduced in Haswell generation. The >> server I'm using is equipped with 4x Intel E5-4610 v2 (Ivy Bridge). I have >> double checked the BIOS and there is no cluster on die setting. > > Oh right, that's E5v3.. > >> The authors of the paper have reported the issue on AMD Bulldozer CPU which >> also does not have COD technology. > > The Opteron 6272, which they use, is an Interlagos, that has something > similar in that each package contains two nodes. > > And their patch touches exactly that part of the x86 topo setup, the > match_die() && !same_node() condition, IOW same package, different node. > > That's not a path an Intel chip would trigger without COD support. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core 2016-07-12 9:04 ` Jirka Hladky @ 2016-07-28 21:48 ` Jirka Hladky 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Jirka Hladky @ 2016-07-28 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel, Kamil Kolakowski, Ingo Molnar, Jean-Pierre Lozi, Alexandra Fedorova, Baptiste Lepers, Lauro Venancio Hi Peter, I have updated regarding the performance degradation after disabling and re-enabling a core. It turns out that lu.C.x results show quite big variation and tests have to be repeated several times and mean value of real time has to be used to get reliable results. There is NO regression on following CPUs 4x Xeon(R) CPU E5-4610 v2 @ 2.30GHz 4x Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v3 @ 2.60GHz but there is regression (slow down by factor 6x) on AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6272 Kernel 4.7.0-0.rc7.git0.1.el7.x86_64 real_time to run ./lu.C.x benchmark (mean value out of 10 runs) Right after boot: 273 seconds After disabling and enabling a core: 1702 seconds! So you were right that it's related to COD technology > The Opteron 6272, which they use, is an Interlagos, that has something > similar in that each package contains two nodes. Lauro Venancio is now working on a fix. Jirka On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jirka Hladky <jhladky@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > have you a chance to look into this? Is there anything I can do to > help you to fix it? > > Thanks a lot! > Jirka > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:47:56AM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> I think Cluster on Die technology was introduced in Haswell generation. The >>> server I'm using is equipped with 4x Intel E5-4610 v2 (Ivy Bridge). I have >>> double checked the BIOS and there is no cluster on die setting. >> >> Oh right, that's E5v3.. >> >>> The authors of the paper have reported the issue on AMD Bulldozer CPU which >>> also does not have COD technology. >> >> The Opteron 6272, which they use, is an Interlagos, that has something >> similar in that each package contains two nodes. >> >> And their patch touches exactly that part of the x86 topo setup, the >> match_die() && !same_node() condition, IOW same package, different node. >> >> That's not a path an Intel chip would trigger without COD support. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-28 21:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-06-28 23:15 Kernel v4.7-rc5 - performance degradation upto 40% after disabling and re-enabling a core Jirka Hladky 2016-06-29 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra [not found] ` <CAE4VaGBO0soGf0pfdduxmuAxU5hCN3grha8DOa5HEgT5Lt9HVQ@mail.gmail.com> 2016-06-29 9:58 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-07-12 9:04 ` Jirka Hladky 2016-07-28 21:48 ` Jirka Hladky
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).