From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Cc: "Julien Desfossez" <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
"Vineeth Remanan Pillai" <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
"Nishanth Aravamudan" <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Subhra Mazumdar" <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Greg Kerr" <kerrnel@google.com>, "Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>,
"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
"Valentin Schneider" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
"Pawan Gupta" <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 09:08:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44e6eba0-abf1-3251-c16a-96ee28dcc14b@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9489d9e4-1dae-fc84-53eb-beb0c1418c0f@linux.intel.com>
On 2019/5/18 8:58, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2019/4/30 12:42, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>>> What's interesting is how in the over-saturated case (the last three
>>>> rows: 128, 256 and 512 total threads) coresched-SMT leaves 20-30% CPU
>>>> performance on the floor according to the load figures.
>>>
>
> Sorry for a delay, I got a chance to obtain some profiling results. Here
> is the story on my side. I still used the previous testing 128/128 case
> (256 threads totally), and focus on CPU53(randomly pickup) only.
>
> Firstly, mpstat reports cpu utilization,
> - baseline is 100%,
> - coresched-SMT is 87.51%
>
> Then I traced sched_switch trace point, in 100s sampling period,
> - baseline context switch 14083 times, next task idle 0 times
> - coresched-SMT context switch 15101 times, next task idle 880 times
>
> So I guess pick_next_task() is mostly the interesting place, then I
> dig into the trace log on coresched-SMT case:
> - CPU53 selected idle task 767 times (matched with the data of sched_switch)
>
> There are 3 branches of CPU53 selecting idle task in pick_next_task():
> - pick pre selected 765 times
> - unconstrained pick 1 times
> - picked: swapper/53/0 1 times
>
> Where CPU53's "pick pre selected idle task" from? I guess its from its
> brother CPU1, so I checked CPU1's trace log and found:
> - CPU1 helped its sibling CPU53 select idle task 800 times
>
> So for CPU53, the most interesting part occurs in pick_task(), that is:
> -The sibling CPU1 helped to select idle task in pick_task()
>
> Forgive me to paste this routine() here:
> =====================================================
> +// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions
> +static struct task_struct *
> +pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick;
> + unsigned long cookie = 0UL;
> +
> + /*
> + * We must not rely on rq->core->core_cookie here, because we fail to reset
> + * rq->core->core_cookie on new picks, such that we can detect if we need
> + * to do single vs multi rq task selection.
> + */
> +
> + if (max && max->core_cookie) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(rq->core->core_cookie != max->core_cookie);
> + cookie = max->core_cookie;
> + }
> +
> + class_pick = class->pick_task(rq);
> + if (!cookie)
> + return class_pick;
> +
> + cookie_pick = sched_core_find(rq, cookie);
> + if (!class_pick)
> + return cookie_pick;
> +
> + /*
> + * If class > max && class > cookie, it is the highest priority task on
> + * the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with
> + * the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint.
> + */
> + if (cpu_prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) && core_prio_less(max, class_pick))
> + return class_pick;
> +
> + return cookie_pick;
> +}
> =================================================================
>
> And the most related log of the case:
> =================================================================
> <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514992: __schedule: cpu(1): selected: gemmbench/21294 ffff888823df8900
> <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514992: __schedule: max: gemmbench/21294 ffff888823df8900
> <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514995: __schedule: (swapper/53/0;140,0,0) ?< (sysbench/21503;140,457178607302,0)
> <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514996: __schedule: (gemmbench/21294;119,219715519947,0) ?< (sysbench/21503;119,457178607302,0)
> <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514996: __schedule: cpu(53): selected: swapper/53/0 0
>
> It said,
> - CPU1 selected gemmbench for itself
> - and gemmbench was assigned to max of this core
> - then CPU1 helped CPU53 to pick_task()
> -- CPU1 used class->pick_task(), selected sysbench for CPU53
> -- CPU1 used cookie_pick, selected swapper(idle task) for CPU53
> -- the class_pick(sysbench) unfortunately didn't pass the priority check
> - idle task picked up at the end(sadly).
>
> So, I think if we want to improve CPU utilization under this scenario,
> the straightforward tweak is picking up class_pick if cookie_pick is idle.
Another quick thought is, in CPU53's own path of pick_next_task, give up
pre selected(by CPU1) if pre selected is idle?
> But I know, this is a violation of the design philosophy(avoid L1TF) of
> this proposal.
>
> Does it make sense to add a knob to switch security/performance?
> Welcome any comments!
>
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-18 1:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-23 16:18 [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/17] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/17] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/17] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/17] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/17] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/17] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/17] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/17] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/17] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-26 14:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 16:10 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 5:38 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/17] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 0:08 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-24 20:43 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 22:12 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-25 14:35 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-22 19:52 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 0:17 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-24 20:43 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 3:36 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-10 13:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 6:15 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-01 23:27 ` Tim Chen
2019-05-03 0:06 ` Tim Chen
2019-05-08 15:49 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-08 18:19 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-08 18:37 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 0:01 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 0:25 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 1:38 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 2:14 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 15:10 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 17:50 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-10 0:09 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/17] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-25 14:26 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-26 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 14:19 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-10 15:12 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/17] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 7:13 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-18 15:37 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-20 13:04 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-20 14:04 ` Vineeth Pillai
2019-05-21 8:19 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-21 13:24 ` Vineeth Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/17] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/17] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 23:46 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 14:03 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 14:05 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/17] sched: Wake up sibling if it has something to run Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-26 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 12:36 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/17] sched: Debug bits Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-17 17:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-23 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 Phil Auld
2019-04-23 18:45 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 3:53 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-06 19:39 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-05-08 2:30 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-08 17:49 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-05-09 2:11 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-15 21:36 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 23:25 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 11:19 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-15 21:39 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 13:13 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 14:00 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-25 3:15 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-25 9:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 14:46 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-25 18:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 18:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-25 19:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 21:31 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 10:43 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 18:37 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-26 19:49 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 9:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 10:19 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-27 9:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 14:15 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-26 2:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-26 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 3:51 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-27 9:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 14:04 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-27 14:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 15:54 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-28 9:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-28 10:29 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-28 12:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-29 2:17 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-29 6:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-29 13:25 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-29 15:39 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-30 1:24 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-29 16:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-30 1:34 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-30 4:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-05-18 0:58 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-05-18 1:08 ` Li, Aubrey [this message]
2019-04-25 14:36 ` Julien Desfossez
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=44e6eba0-abf1-3251-c16a-96ee28dcc14b@linux.intel.com \
--to=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.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
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).