From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de,
jstancek@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched,numa cap pte scanning overhead to 3% of run time
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:56:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <563B7C2D.90008@surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151105153402.GR17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 11/05/2015 10:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 01:25:15PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -2155,6 +2155,7 @@ void task_numa_work(struct callback_head *work)
>> unsigned long migrate, next_scan, now = jiffies;
>> struct task_struct *p = current;
>> struct mm_struct *mm = p->mm;
>> + u64 runtime = p->se.sum_exec_runtime;
>> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>> unsigned long start, end;
>> unsigned long nr_pte_updates = 0;
>> @@ -2277,6 +2278,20 @@ void task_numa_work(struct callback_head *work)
>> else
>> reset_ptenuma_scan(p);
>> up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * There is a fundamental mismatch between the runtime based
>> + * NUMA scanning at the task level, and the wall clock time
>> + * NUMA scanning at the mm level. On a severely overloaded
>> + * system, with very large processes, this mismatch can cause
>> + * the system to spend all of its time in change_prot_numa().
>> + * Limit NUMA PTE scanning to 3% of the task's run time, if
>> + * we spent so much time scanning we got rescheduled.
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely(p->se.sum_exec_runtime != runtime)) {
>> + u64 diff = p->se.sum_exec_runtime - runtime;
>> + p->node_stamp += 32 * diff;
>> + }
>
> I don't actually see how this does what it says it does
If we got rescheduled during the assigning of runtime
above, and this point, the scheduler should have
updated the p->se.sum_exec_runtime statistic, given
that update_curr is called from both dequeue_entity
and enqueue_entity in fair.c
Advancing the node_stamp by 32x the amount of time
the task consumed between entering task_numa_work and
this point should ensure task_numa_work does not get
queued again until we have used 32x as much time doing
something else.
That should limit the CPU time used by task_numa_work.
What am I missing?
>> @@ -2302,7 +2317,7 @@ void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
>> now = curr->se.sum_exec_runtime;
>> period = (u64)curr->numa_scan_period * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
>>
>> - if (now - curr->node_stamp > period) {
>> + if (now > curr->node_stamp + period) {
>> if (!curr->node_stamp)
>> curr->numa_scan_period = task_scan_min(curr);
>> curr->node_stamp += period;
>
> And this really should be an independent patch. Although the fix I had
> in mind looked like:
>
> if ((s64)(now - curr->node_stamp) > period)
>
> But I suppose this works too.
I can resend this as a separate patch if you prefer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-05 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-04 18:25 [PATCH] sched,numa cap pte scanning overhead to 3% of run time Rik van Riel
2015-11-05 15:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-05 15:56 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2015-11-05 16:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=563B7C2D.90008@surriel.com \
--to=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).