linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
	Gautham Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 12:36:54 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220204070654.GF618915@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220203144652.12540-3-mgorman@techsingularity.net>

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> [2022-02-03 14:46:52]:

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index d201a7052a29..e6cd55951304 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -2242,6 +2242,59 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * Calculate an allowed NUMA imbalance such that LLCs do not get
> +	 * imbalanced.
> +	 */

We seem to adding this hunk before the sched_domains may be degenerated.
Wondering if we really want to do it before degeneration.

Let say we have 3 sched domains and we calculated the sd->imb_numa_nr for
all the 3 domains, then lets say the middle sched_domain gets degenerated. 
Would the sd->imb_numa_nr's still be relevant?


> +	for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
> +		unsigned int imb = 0;
> +		unsigned int imb_span = 1;
> +
> +		for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
> +			struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
> +
> +			if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) && child &&
> +			    (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
> +				struct sched_domain *top, *top_p;
> +				unsigned int nr_llcs;
> +
> +				/*
> +				 * For a single LLC per node, allow an
> +				 * imbalance up to 25% of the node. This is an
> +				 * arbitrary cutoff based on SMT-2 to balance
> +				 * between memory bandwidth and avoiding
> +				 * premature sharing of HT resources and SMT-4
> +				 * or SMT-8 *may* benefit from a different
> +				 * cutoff.
> +				 *
> +				 * For multiple LLCs, allow an imbalance
> +				 * until multiple tasks would share an LLC
> +				 * on one node while LLCs on another node
> +				 * remain idle.
> +				 */
> +				nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
> +				if (nr_llcs == 1)
> +					imb = sd->span_weight >> 2;
> +				else
> +					imb = nr_llcs;
> +				sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
> +
> +				/* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
> +				top = sd;
> +				top_p = top->parent;
> +				while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
> +					top = top->parent;
> +					top_p = top->parent;
> +				}
> +				imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;

I am getting confused by imb_span.
Let say we have a topology of SMT -> MC -> DIE -> NUMA -> NUMA, with SMT and
MC domains having SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag set.
We come here only for DIE domain.

imb_span set here is being used for both the subsequent sched domains
most likely they will be NUMA domains. Right?

> +			} else {
> +				int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
> +
> +				sd->imb_numa_nr = imb * factor;

For SMT, (or any sched domains below the llcs) factor would be
sd->span_weight but imb_numa_nr and imb would be 0.
For NUMA (or any sched domain just above DIE), factor would be
sd->imb_numa_nr would be nr_llcs.
For subsequent sched_domains, the sd->imb_numa_nr would be some multiple of
nr_llcs. Right?


> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	/* Calculate CPU capacity for physical packages and nodes */
>  	for (i = nr_cpumask_bits-1; i >= 0; i--) {
>  		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_map))
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-04  7:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-03 14:46 [PATCH v5 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for multiple LLCs Mel Gorman
2022-02-03 14:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Improve consistency of allowed NUMA balance calculations Mel Gorman
2022-02-03 14:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs Mel Gorman
2022-02-04  7:06   ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2022-02-04  9:04     ` Mel Gorman
2022-02-04 15:07   ` Nayak, KPrateek (K Prateek)
2022-02-04 16:45     ` Mel Gorman
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-02-08  9:43 [PATCH v6 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2022-02-08  9:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman
2022-02-08 16:19   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2022-02-09  5:10   ` K Prateek Nayak
2022-02-09 10:33     ` Mel Gorman
2022-02-11 19:02       ` Jirka Hladky
2022-02-14 10:27   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2022-02-14 11:03   ` Vincent Guittot
2021-12-10  9:33 [PATCH v4 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2021-12-10  9:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman
2021-12-13  8:28   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-13 13:01     ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-13 14:47       ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-15 11:52         ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-15 12:25           ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-16 18:33             ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-20 11:12               ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-21 15:03                 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-21 17:13                 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-12-22  8:52                   ` Jirka Hladky
2022-01-04 19:52                     ` Jirka Hladky
2022-01-05 10:42                   ` Mel Gorman
2022-01-05 10:49                     ` Mel Gorman
2022-01-10 15:53                     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-01-12 10:24                       ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-17 19:54   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-01 15:18 [PATCH v3 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2021-12-01 15:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman
2021-12-03  8:15   ` Barry Song
2021-12-03 10:50     ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-03 11:14       ` Barry Song
2021-12-03 13:27         ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-04 10:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-06  8:48     ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-12-06 14:51       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-06 15:12     ` Mel Gorman
2021-12-09 14:23       ` Valentin Schneider
2021-12-09 15:43         ` Mel Gorman
2021-11-25 15:19 [PATCH 0/2] Adjust NUMA imbalance for " Mel Gorman
2021-11-25 15:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans " Mel Gorman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly 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=20220204070654.GF618915@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).