From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5669C2D0C0 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:31:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7125A20715 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:31:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="EqsaBBq4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726995AbfLWNb4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:31:56 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com ([209.85.167.66]:36057 "EHLO mail-lf1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726680AbfLWNby (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:31:54 -0500 Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id n12so12651848lfe.3 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 05:31:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fTbVxFSsXzs3g5RgrsYolNaq2/YAmty7Yb8AKjeJcyA=; b=EqsaBBq4utpBKsPblDqsKf96DAlWzp1I5XpVdZkc5UHVi+ht6IrNqEPB7LFg3fJJT0 JzAlkxut7pz3ALYEK+i7OvPmVY2Je1tmXhSt1eLQAIuvfeEZdLWqelOcwbEDFb8C4jQZ HH+3CLuBh7GjptLhwLK+GX9yinzkUzj+Z3vQXHDmWZ959QWYcwnUWi+vM0oYZVc4ceNV 8S8tkt92yKgf+b2O4qjbwarhUhhZDjD/qG48aobEJdAseUAp8HQ/ENPwfKU+1xERX8Nj 6C6xqA6qhsz+wbob6YS+Af597t2twdP4mboZsxqRPgyjQvznioENzxoNhCfPpqmapxVc kmhw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fTbVxFSsXzs3g5RgrsYolNaq2/YAmty7Yb8AKjeJcyA=; b=lyLGVquiHFU8GE9dNGwbu0ULjWBV17v1g1A93GfXJYddGgiJ05NUWkl4ccQTVElL29 +j9+5Qkadu1b6nziLfyFb7cTVViHqLLvpx1j0dEWpOn3/4FtZfCD8lhbuA/MwNBjJkug zLbF+10gfIA9xsjZAKcZbbpbh7cMP3m8KQj4Wg2FAI1R5Cuwt3U33XQ5SVsCRcw2Mw2q IAzpiEMZhdMNX7AfxRVUnblG93K/y35tfcsoBRbS2PPNvy955VdeRH4+dUkIyNnNxn4Y LSI5BWkIeSCmp+DGE3X/RYYh25uKUMN9MZ/Ogls+aD8eMB5dcZG1GANlT2gSFV6+6N+h yi2w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUrKUJImY6eaCK6TFVYNMyNiwjYAZm3gJTX0pon3vgKmAjw7qAs BbebgnlFVAY+q1Re/wkyUmjJ9pwOIwER8MfnxApbEGyyRFk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy5NJI2JxV6H2DM3+GXAnBCo8qX2wLZPVo8VTq4eGD37/5pFedekdRJ3kVBj2LE4VhBOTBr1geovKBlLYrA3qo= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5c4b:: with SMTP id s11mr16736701lfp.133.1577107912246; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 05:31:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191220084252.GL3178@techsingularity.net> In-Reply-To: <20191220084252.GL3178@techsingularity.net> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 14:31:40 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched, fair: Allow a small degree of load imbalance between SD_NUMA domains v2 To: Mel Gorman Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Phil Auld , Valentin Schneider , Srikar Dronamraju , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Hillf Danton , Parth Shah , Rik van Riel , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 09:42, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Changelog since V1 > o Alter code flow vincent.guittot > o Use idle CPUs for comparison instead of sum_nr_running vincent.guittot > o Note that the division is still in place. Without it and taking > imbalance_adj into account before the cutoff, two NUMA domains > do not converage as being equally balanced when the number of > busy tasks equals the size of one domain (50% of the sum). > Some data is in the changelog. > > The CPU load balancer balances between different domains to spread load > and strives to have equal balance everywhere. Communicating tasks can > migrate so they are topologically close to each other but these decisions > are independent. On a lightly loaded NUMA machine, two communicating tasks > pulled together at wakeup time can be pushed apart by the load balancer. > In isolation, the load balancer decision is fine but it ignores the tasks > data locality and the wakeup/LB paths continually conflict. NUMA balancing > is also a factor but it also simply conflicts with the load balancer. > > This patch allows a degree of imbalance to exist between NUMA domains > based on the imbalance_pct defined by the scheduler domain. This slight > imbalance is allowed until the scheduler domain reaches almost 50% > utilisation at which point other factors like HT utilisation and memory > bandwidth come into play. While not commented upon in the code, the cutoff > is important for memory-bound parallelised non-communicating workloads > that do not fully utilise the entire machine. This is not necessarily the > best universal cut-off point but it appeared appropriate for a variety > of workloads and machines. > > The most obvious impact is on netperf TCP_STREAM -- two simple > communicating tasks with some softirq offloaded depending on the > transmission rate. > > 2-socket Haswell machine 48 core, HT enabled > netperf-tcp -- mmtests config config-network-netperf-unbound > baseline lbnuma-v1 > Hmean 64 666.68 ( 0.00%) 667.31 ( 0.09%) > Hmean 128 1276.18 ( 0.00%) 1288.92 * 1.00%* > Hmean 256 2366.78 ( 0.00%) 2422.22 * 2.34%* > Hmean 1024 8123.94 ( 0.00%) 8464.15 * 4.19%* > Hmean 2048 12962.45 ( 0.00%) 13693.79 * 5.64%* > Hmean 3312 17709.24 ( 0.00%) 17494.23 ( -1.21%) > Hmean 4096 19756.01 ( 0.00%) 19472.58 ( -1.43%) > Hmean 8192 27469.59 ( 0.00%) 27787.32 ( 1.16%) > Hmean 16384 30062.82 ( 0.00%) 30657.62 * 1.98%* > Stddev 64 2.64 ( 0.00%) 2.09 ( 20.76%) > Stddev 128 6.22 ( 0.00%) 6.48 ( -4.28%) > Stddev 256 9.75 ( 0.00%) 22.85 (-134.30%) > Stddev 1024 69.62 ( 0.00%) 58.41 ( 16.11%) > Stddev 2048 72.73 ( 0.00%) 83.47 ( -14.77%) > Stddev 3312 412.35 ( 0.00%) 75.77 ( 81.63%) > Stddev 4096 345.02 ( 0.00%) 297.01 ( 13.91%) > Stddev 8192 280.09 ( 0.00%) 485.36 ( -73.29%) > Stddev 16384 452.99 ( 0.00%) 250.21 ( 44.76%) > > Fairly small impact on average performance but note how much the standard > deviation is reduced in many cases. A clearer story is visible from the > NUMA Balancing stats > > Ops NUMA base-page range updates 21596.00 282.00 > Ops NUMA PTE updates 21596.00 282.00 > Ops NUMA PMD updates 0.00 0.00 > Ops NUMA hint faults 17786.00 137.00 > Ops NUMA hint local faults % 9916.00 137.00 > Ops NUMA hint local percent 55.75 100.00 > Ops NUMA pages migrated 4231.00 0.00 > > Without the patch, only 55.75% of sampled accesses are local. > With the patch, 100% of sampled accesses are local. A 2-socket > Broadwell showed better results on average but are not presented > for brevity. The patch holds up for 4-socket boxes as well > > 4-socket Haswell machine, 144 core, HT enabled > netperf-tcp > > baseline lbnuma-v1 > Hmean 64 953.51 ( 0.00%) 977.27 * 2.49%* > Hmean 128 1826.48 ( 0.00%) 1863.37 * 2.02%* > Hmean 256 3295.19 ( 0.00%) 3329.37 ( 1.04%) > Hmean 1024 10915.40 ( 0.00%) 11339.60 * 3.89%* > Hmean 2048 17833.82 ( 0.00%) 19066.12 * 6.91%* > Hmean 3312 22690.72 ( 0.00%) 24048.92 * 5.99%* > Hmean 4096 24422.23 ( 0.00%) 26606.60 * 8.94%* > Hmean 8192 31250.11 ( 0.00%) 33374.62 * 6.80%* > Hmean 16384 37033.70 ( 0.00%) 38684.28 * 4.46%* > Hmean 16384 37033.70 ( 0.00%) 38732.22 * 4.59%* > > On this machine, the baseline measured 58.11% locality for sampled accesses > and 100% local accesses with the patch. Similarly, the patch holds up > for 2-socket machines with multiple L3 caches such as the AMD Epyc 2 > > 2-socket EPYC-2 machine, 256 cores > netperf-tcp > Hmean 64 1564.63 ( 0.00%) 1550.59 ( -0.90%) > Hmean 128 3028.83 ( 0.00%) 3030.48 ( 0.05%) > Hmean 256 5733.47 ( 0.00%) 5769.51 ( 0.63%) > Hmean 1024 18936.04 ( 0.00%) 19216.15 * 1.48%* > Hmean 2048 27589.77 ( 0.00%) 28200.45 * 2.21%* > Hmean 3312 35361.97 ( 0.00%) 35881.94 * 1.47%* > Hmean 4096 37965.59 ( 0.00%) 38702.01 * 1.94%* > Hmean 8192 48499.92 ( 0.00%) 49530.62 * 2.13%* > Hmean 16384 54249.96 ( 0.00%) 55937.24 * 3.11%* > > For amusement purposes, here are two graphs showing CPU utilisation on > the 2-socket Haswell machine over time based on mpstat with the ordering > of the CPUs based on topology. > > http://www.skynet.ie/~mel/postings/lbnuma-20191218/netperf-tcp-mpstat-baseline.png > http://www.skynet.ie/~mel/postings/lbnuma-20191218/netperf-tcp-mpstat-lbnuma-v1r1.png > > The lines on the left match up CPUs that are HT siblings or on the same > node. The machine has only one L3 cache per NUMA node or that would also > be shown. It should be very clear from the images that the baseline > kernel spread the load with lighter utilisation across nodes while the > patched kernel had heavy utilisation of fewer CPUs on one node. > > Hackbench generally shows good results across machines with some > differences depending on whether threads or sockets are used as well as > pipes or sockets. This is the *worst* result from the 2-socket Haswell > machine > > 2-socket Haswell machine 48 core, HT enabled > hackbench-process-pipes -- mmtests config config-scheduler-unbound > 5.5.0-rc1 5.5.0-rc1 > baseline lbnuma-v1 > Amean 1 1.2580 ( 0.00%) 1.2393 ( 1.48%) > Amean 4 5.3293 ( 0.00%) 5.2683 * 1.14%* > Amean 7 8.9067 ( 0.00%) 8.7130 * 2.17%* > Amean 12 14.9577 ( 0.00%) 14.5773 * 2.54%* > Amean 21 25.9570 ( 0.00%) 25.6657 * 1.12%* > Amean 30 37.7287 ( 0.00%) 37.1277 * 1.59%* > Amean 48 61.6757 ( 0.00%) 60.0433 * 2.65%* > Amean 79 100.4740 ( 0.00%) 98.4507 ( 2.01%) > Amean 110 141.2450 ( 0.00%) 136.8900 * 3.08%* > Amean 141 179.7747 ( 0.00%) 174.5110 * 2.93%* > Amean 172 221.0700 ( 0.00%) 214.7857 * 2.84%* > Amean 192 245.2007 ( 0.00%) 238.3680 * 2.79%* > > An earlier prototype of the patch showed major regressions for NAS C-class > when running with only half of the available CPUs -- 20-30% performance > hits were measured at the time. With this version of the patch, the impact > is marginal. In this case, the patch is lbnuma-v2 where as nodivide is a > patch discussed during review that avoids a divide by putting the cutoff > at exactly 50% instead of accounting for imbalance_adj. > > NAS-C class OMP -- mmtests config hpc-nas-c-class-omp-half > baseline nodivide lbnuma-v1 > Amean bt.C 64.29 ( 0.00%) 76.33 * -18.72%* 69.55 * -8.17%* > Amean cg.C 26.33 ( 0.00%) 26.26 ( 0.27%) 26.36 ( -0.11%) > Amean ep.C 10.26 ( 0.00%) 10.29 ( -0.31%) 10.26 ( -0.04%) > Amean ft.C 17.98 ( 0.00%) 19.73 * -9.71%* 19.51 * -8.52%* > Amean is.C 0.99 ( 0.00%) 0.99 ( 0.40%) 0.99 ( 0.00%) > Amean lu.C 51.72 ( 0.00%) 48.57 ( 6.09%) 48.68 * 5.88%* > Amean mg.C 8.12 ( 0.00%) 8.27 ( -1.82%) 8.24 ( -1.50%) > Amean sp.C 82.76 ( 0.00%) 86.06 * -3.99%* 83.42 ( -0.80%) > Amean ua.C 58.64 ( 0.00%) 57.66 ( 1.67%) 57.79 ( 1.45%) > > There is some impact but there is a degree of variability and the ones > showing impact are mainly workloads that are mostly parallelised > and communicate infrequently between tests. It's a corner case where > the workload benefits heavily from spreading wide and early which is > not common. This is intended to illustrate the worst case measured. > > In general, the patch simply seeks to avoid unnecessarily cross-node > migrations when a machine is lightly loaded but shows benefits for other > workloads. While tests are still running, so far it seems to benefit > light-utilisation smaller workloads on large machines and does not appear > to do any harm to larger or parallelised workloads. > > [valentin.schneider@arm.com: Reformat code flow, correct comment, use idle_cpus] > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index 08a233e97a01..60a780e1420e 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -8637,10 +8637,6 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s > /* > * Try to use spare capacity of local group without overloading it or > * emptying busiest. > - * XXX Spreading tasks across NUMA nodes is not always the best policy > - * and special care should be taken for SD_NUMA domain level before > - * spreading the tasks. For now, load_balance() fully relies on > - * NUMA_BALANCING and fbq_classify_group/rq to override the decision. > */ > if (local->group_type == group_has_spare) { > if (busiest->group_type > group_fully_busy) { > @@ -8671,6 +8667,39 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s > return; > } > > + /* Consider allowing a small imbalance between NUMA groups */ > + if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) { > + unsigned int imbalance_adj, imbalance_max; > + > + /* > + * imbalance_adj is the allowable degree of imbalance > + * to exist between two NUMA domains. It's calculated > + * relative to imbalance_pct with a minimum of two > + * tasks or idle CPUs. The choice of two is due to > + * the most basic case of two communicating tasks > + * that should remain on the same NUMA node after > + * wakeup. > + */ > + imbalance_adj = max(2U, (busiest->group_weight * > + (env->sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 100) >> 1); > + > + /* > + * Ignore small imbalances unless the busiest sd has > + * almost half as many busy CPUs as there are > + * available CPUs in the busiest group. Note that > + * it is not exactly half as imbalance_adj must be > + * accounted for or the two domains do not converge > + * as equally balanced if the number of busy tasks is > + * roughly the size of one NUMA domain. > + */ > + imbalance_max = (busiest->group_weight >> 1) + imbalance_adj; > + if (env->imbalance <= imbalance_adj && AFAICT, env->imbalance is undefined there. I have tried your patch with the below instead - if (env->imbalance <= imbalance_adj && - busiest->idle_cpus >= imbalance_max) { + if (busiest->idle_cpus >= imbalance_max) { Sorry for the delay but running tests tooks more time than expected. I have applied your patch on top of v5.5-rc3+apparmor fix I can see an improvement for hackbench -l (256000/#grp) -g #grp 1 groups 14.197 +/-0.95% 12.127 +/-1.19% (+14.58%) I haven't seen any difference otherwise > + busiest->idle_cpus >= imbalance_max) { > + env->imbalance = 0; > + return; > + } > + } > + > if (busiest->group_weight == 1 || sds->prefer_sibling) { > unsigned int nr_diff = busiest->sum_nr_running; > /*