From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fs <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/core: Preempt current task in favour of bound kthread
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:02:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtD1by06eQ=vJhh9SvfegRanSSwQrKPageLGo0OODu9bjg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191210101116.GA9139@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 11:11, Srikar Dronamraju
<srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> * Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> [2019-12-10 10:43:46]:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 06:43, Srikar Dronamraju
> > <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is more prone to happen if the current running task is CPU
> > > intensive and the sched_wake_up_granularity is set to larger value.
> > > When the sched_wake_up_granularity was relatively small, it was observed
> > > that the bound thread would complete before the load balancer would have
> > > chosen to move the cache hot task to a different CPU.
> > >
> > > To deal with this situation, the current running task would yield to a
> > > per CPU bound kthread, provided kthread is not CPU intensive.
> > >
> > > /pboffline/hwcct_prg_old/lib/fsperf -t overwrite --noclean -f 5g -b 4k /pboffline
> > >
> > > (With sched_wake_up_granularity set to 15ms)
> >
> > So you increase sched_wake_up_granularity to a high level to ensure
> > that current is no preempted by waking thread but then you add a way
> > to finally preempt it which is somewhat weird IMO
> >
>
> Yes, setting to a smaller value will help mitigate/solve the problem.
> There may be folks out who have traditionally set a high wake_up_granularity
> (and have seen better performance with it), who may miss out that when using
> blk-mq, such settings will cause more harm. And they may continue to see
> some performance regressions when they move to a lower wake_up_granularity.
>
> > Have you tried to increase the priority of workqueue thread (decrease
> > nice priority) ? This is the right way to reduce the impact of the
> > sched_wake_up_granularity on the wakeup of your specific kthread.
> > Because what you want at the end is keeping a low wakeup granularity
> > for these io workqueues
> >
>
> Yes, people can tune the priority of workqueue threads and infact it may be
> easier to set wake_up_granularity to a lower value. However the point is how
> do we make everyone aware that they are running into a performance issue
> with a higher wakeup_granularity?
I did the test on my local setup to change the nice priority of io
workqueue and the active migrations are removed even with high
wakeup_granularity because IO workqueue can still preempt normal task
but let other workqueue behave normally.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> Srikar Dronamraju
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-10 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-14 11:31 single aio thread is migrated crazily by scheduler Ming Lei
2019-11-14 13:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-15 0:09 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-15 14:16 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-14 23:54 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-15 1:08 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-15 4:56 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-15 7:08 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-15 23:40 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-16 6:31 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-18 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-18 14:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-11-18 20:40 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-20 19:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-20 22:03 ` Phil Auld
2019-11-21 4:12 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-21 14:12 ` Phil Auld
2019-11-21 15:02 ` Boaz Harrosh
2019-11-21 16:19 ` Jens Axboe
2019-12-09 16:58 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-11-21 22:10 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-21 13:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-21 14:21 ` Phil Auld
2019-12-09 16:51 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-09 23:17 ` Dave Chinner
2019-12-10 3:27 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-10 5:43 ` [PATCH v2] sched/core: Preempt current task in favour of bound kthread Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-10 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-10 9:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-10 10:18 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-10 10:16 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-10 9:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-12-10 10:11 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-10 11:02 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2019-12-10 17:23 ` [PATCH v3] " Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-11 17:38 ` [PATCH v4] " Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-11 22:46 ` Dave Chinner
2019-12-12 10:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 11:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-12-12 13:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 15:07 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-12-12 15:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-13 5:32 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-11-18 16:26 ` single aio thread is migrated crazily by scheduler Srikar Dronamraju
2019-11-18 21:18 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-19 8:54 ` Ming Lei
[not found] ` <20191128094003.752-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2019-11-28 9:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-12-02 2:46 ` Ming Lei
2019-12-02 4:02 ` Dave Chinner
2019-12-02 4:22 ` Ming Lei
2019-12-02 13:45 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-12-02 21:22 ` Phil Auld
2019-12-03 9:45 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-12-04 13:50 ` Ming Lei
2019-12-02 23:53 ` Dave Chinner
2019-12-03 0:18 ` Ming Lei
2019-12-03 13:34 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-12-02 7:39 ` Juri Lelli
2019-12-02 3:08 ` Dave Chinner
[not found] ` <20191202090158.15016-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2019-12-02 23:06 ` Dave Chinner
[not found] ` <20191203131514.5176-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2019-12-03 22:29 ` Dave Chinner
[not found] ` <20191204102903.896-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2019-12-04 22:59 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-27 0:43 ` 0da4873c66: xfstests.generic.287.fail kernel test robot
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='CAKfTPtD1by06eQ=vJhh9SvfegRanSSwQrKPageLGo0OODu9bjg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.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).