Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Scan cluster before scanning LLC in wake-up path

[Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> [2022-01-28 07:40:15]:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 8:13 PM Srikar Dronamraju
> <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> [2022-01-28 09:21:08]:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:41 AM Gautham R. Shenoy
> > > <gautham.shenoy@amd.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 04:09:47PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> > > > > From: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > For platforms having clusters like Kunpeng920, CPUs within the same
> > > > > cluster have lower latency when synchronizing and accessing shared
> > > > > resources like cache. Thus, this patch tries to find an idle cpu
> > > > > within the cluster of the target CPU before scanning the whole LLC
> > > > > to gain lower latency.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note neither Kunpeng920 nor x86 Jacobsville supports SMT, so this
> > > > > patch doesn't consider SMT for this moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Testing has been done on Kunpeng920 by pinning tasks to one numa
> > > > > and two numa. On Kunpeng920, Each numa has 8 clusters and each
> > > > > cluster has 4 CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > With this patch, We noticed enhancement on tbench within one
> > > > > numa or cross two numa.
> > > > >
> > > > > On numa 0:
> > > > >                             5.17-rc1                patched
> > > > > Hmean     1        324.73 (   0.00%)      378.01 *  16.41%*
> > > > > Hmean     2        645.36 (   0.00%)      754.63 *  16.93%*
> > > > > Hmean     4       1302.09 (   0.00%)     1507.54 *  15.78%*
> > > > > Hmean     8       2612.03 (   0.00%)     2982.57 *  14.19%*
> > > > > Hmean     16      5307.12 (   0.00%)     5886.66 *  10.92%*
> > > > > Hmean     32      9354.22 (   0.00%)     9908.13 *   5.92%*
> > > > > Hmean     64      7240.35 (   0.00%)     7278.78 *   0.53%*
> > > > > Hmean     128     6186.40 (   0.00%)     6187.85 (   0.02%)
> > > > >
> > > > > On numa 0-1:
> > > > >                             5.17-rc1                patched
> > > > > Hmean     1        320.01 (   0.00%)      378.44 *  18.26%*
> > > > > Hmean     2        643.85 (   0.00%)      752.52 *  16.88%*
> > > > > Hmean     4       1287.36 (   0.00%)     1505.62 *  16.95%*
> > > > > Hmean     8       2564.60 (   0.00%)     2955.29 *  15.23%*
> > > > > Hmean     16      5195.69 (   0.00%)     5814.74 *  11.91%*
> > > > > Hmean     32      9769.16 (   0.00%)    10872.63 *  11.30%*
> > > > > Hmean     64     15952.50 (   0.00%)    17281.98 *   8.33%*
> > > > > Hmean     128    13113.77 (   0.00%)    13895.20 *   5.96%*
> > > > > Hmean     256    10997.59 (   0.00%)    11244.69 *   2.25%*
> > > > > Hmean     512    14623.60 (   0.00%)    15526.25 *   6.17%*
> > > > >
> > > > > This will also help to improve the MySQL. With MySQL server
> > > > > running on numa 0 and client running on numa 1, both QPS and
> > > > > latency is imporved on read-write case:
> > > > >                         5.17-rc1        patched
> > > > > QPS-16threads        143333.2633    145077.4033(+1.22%)
> > > > > QPS-24threads        195085.9367    202719.6133(+3.91%)
> > > > > QPS-32threads        241165.6867      249020.74(+3.26%)
> > > > > QPS-64threads        244586.8433    253387.7567(+3.60%)
> > > > > avg-lat-16threads           2.23           2.19(+1.19%)
> > > > > avg-lat-24threads           2.46           2.36(+3.79%)
> > > > > avg-lat-36threads           2.66           2.57(+3.26%)
> > > > > avg-lat-64threads           5.23           5.05(+3.44%)
> > > > >
> > > > > Tested-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > >  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > > index 5146163bfabb..2f84a933aedd 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > > @@ -6262,12 +6262,46 @@ static inline int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd
> > > > >
> > > > >  #endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_SMT */
> > > > >
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Scan the cluster domain for idle CPUs and clear cluster cpumask after scanning
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static inline int scan_cluster(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int target)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask);
> > > > > +     struct sched_domain *sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_cluster, target));
> > > > > +     int cpu, idle_cpu;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     /* TODO: Support SMT case while a machine with both cluster and SMT born */
> > > > > +     if (!sched_smt_active() && sd) {
> > > > > +             for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpus, sched_domain_span(sd)) {
> > > > > +                     idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p);
> > > > > +                     if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
> > > > > +                             return idle_cpu;
> > > > > +             }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +             /* Don't ping-pong tasks in and out cluster frequently */
> > > > > +             if (cpus_share_resources(target, prev_cpu))
> > > > > +                     return target;
> > > >
> > > > We reach here when there aren't any idle CPUs within the
> > > > cluster. However there might be idle CPUs in the MC domain. Is a busy
> > > > @target preferable to a potentially idle CPU within the larger domain
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > Hi Gautham,
> > >
> >
> > Hi Barry,
> >
> >
> > > My benchmark showed some performance regression while load was medium or above
> > > if we grabbed idle cpu in and out the cluster. it turned out the
> > > regression disappeared if
> > > we blocked the ping-pong. so the logic here is that if we have scanned
> > > and found an
> > > idle cpu within the cluster before, we don't let the task jumping back
> > > and forth frequently
> > > as cache synchronization is higher cost. but the code still allows
> > > scanning out of the cluster
> > > if we haven't packed waker and wakee together yet.
> > >
> >
> > Like what Gautham said, should we choose the same cluster if we find that
> > there are no idle-cpus in the LLC? This way we avoid ping-pong if there are
> > no idle-cpus but we still pick an idle-cpu to a busy cpu?
> 
> Hi Srikar,
> I am sorry I didn't get your question. Currently the code works as below:
> if task A wakes up task B, and task A is in LLC0 and task B is in LLC1.
> we will scan the cluster of A before scanning the whole LLC0, in this case,
> cluster of A is the closest sibling, so it is the better choice than other CPUs
> which are in LLC0 but not in the cluster of A. 

Yes, this is right.

> But we do scan all cpus of LLC0
> afterwards if we fail to find an idle CPU in the cluster.

However my reading of the patch, before we can scan other clusters within
the LLC (aka LLC0), we have a check in scan cluster which says 

	/* Don't ping-pong tasks in and out cluster frequently */
	if (cpus_share_resources(target, prev_cpu))
	   return target;

My reading of this is, ignore other clusters (at this point, we know there
are no idle CPUs in this cluster. We don't know if there are idle cpus in
them or not) if the previous CPU and target CPU happen to be from the same
cluster. This effectively means we are given preference to cache over idle
CPU.

Or Am I still missing something?

> 
> After a while, if the cluster of A gets an idle CPU and pulls B into the
> cluster, we prefer not pushing B out of the cluster of A again though
> there might be an idle CPU outside. as benchmark shows getting an
> idle CPU out of the cluster of A doesn't bring performance improvement
> but performance decreases as B might be getting in and getting out
> the cluster of A very frequently, then cache coherence ping-pong.
> 

The counter argument can be that Task A and Task B are related and were
running on the same cluster. But Load balancer moved Task B to a different
cluster. Now this check may cause them to continue to run on two different
clusters, even though the underlying load balance issues may have changed.

No?


-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju