From: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: "tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
"rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>,
"mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>,
"msys.mizuma@gmail.com" <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>,
"valentin.schneider@arm.com" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
"juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
"aubrey.li@linux.intel.com" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@huawei.com>,
"Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
"guodong.xu@linaro.org" <guodong.xu@linaro.org>,
yangyicong <yangyicong@huawei.com>,
"Liguozhu (Kenneth)" <liguozhu@hisilicon.com>,
"linuxarm@openeuler.org" <linuxarm@openeuler.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v6 3/4] scheduler: scan idle cpu in cluster for tasks within one LLC
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 13:07:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aee3fd353a3a4bfca65aa1b78386f9b5@hisilicon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <142c7192-cde8-6dbe-bb9d-f0fce21ec959@arm.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:30 AM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>; Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> Cc: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com; catalin.marinas@arm.com; will@kernel.org;
> rjw@rjwysocki.net; bp@alien8.de; tglx@linutronix.de; mingo@redhat.com;
> lenb@kernel.org; peterz@infradead.org; rostedt@goodmis.org;
> bsegall@google.com; mgorman@suse.de; msys.mizuma@gmail.com;
> valentin.schneider@arm.com; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; Jonathan Cameron
> <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>; juri.lelli@redhat.com; mark.rutland@arm.com;
> sudeep.holla@arm.com; aubrey.li@linux.intel.com;
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; x86@kernel.org; xuwei (O) <xuwei5@huawei.com>;
> Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>; guodong.xu@linaro.org; yangyicong
> <yangyicong@huawei.com>; Liguozhu (Kenneth) <liguozhu@hisilicon.com>;
> linuxarm@openeuler.org; hpa@zytor.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 3/4] scheduler: scan idle cpu in cluster for tasks
> within one LLC
>
> On 03/05/2021 13:35, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
>
> [...]
>
> >>> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com]
>
> [...]
>
> >>> On 29/04/2021 00:41, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com]
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 20/04/2021 02:18, Barry Song wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > On the other hand, according to "sched: Implement smarter wake-affine logic"
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/
> ?id=62470419
> >
> > Proper factor in wake_wide is mainly beneficial of 1:n tasks like
> postgresql/pgbench.
> > So using the smaller cluster size as factor might help make wake_affine false
> so
> > improve pgbench.
> >
> > From the commit log, while clients = 2*cpus, the commit made the biggest
> > improvement. In my case, It should be clients=48 for a machine whose LLC
> > size is 24.
> >
> > In Linux, I created a 240MB database and ran "pgbench -c 48 -S -T 20 pgbench"
> > under two different scenarios:
> > 1. page cache always hit, so no real I/O for database read
> > 2. echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> >
> > For case 1, using cluster_size and using llc_size will result in similar
> > tps= ~108000, all of 24 cpus have 100% cpu utilization.
> >
> > For case 2, using llc_size still shows better performance.
> >
> > tps for each test round(cluster size as factor in wake_wide):
> > 1398.450887 1275.020401 1632.542437 1412.241627 1611.095692 1381.354294
> 1539.877146
> > avg tps = 1464
> >
> > tps for each test round(llc size as factor in wake_wide):
> > 1718.402983 1443.169823 1502.353823 1607.415861 1597.396924 1745.651814
> 1876.802168
> > avg tps = 1641 (+12%)
> >
> > so it seems using cluster_size as factor in "slave >= factor && master >=
> slave *
> > factor" isn't a good choice for my machine at least.
>
> So SD size = 4 (instead of 24) seems to be too small for `-c 48`.
>
> Just curious, have you seen the benefit of using wake wide on SD size =
> 24 (LLC) compared to not using it at all?
At least in my benchmark made today, I have not seen any benefit to use
llc_size. Always returning 0 in wake_wide() seems to be much better.
postgres@ubuntu:$pgbench -i pgbench
postgres@pgbench:$ pgbench -T 120 -c 48 pgbench
using llc_size, it got to 123tps
always returning 0 in wake_wide(), it got to 158tps
actually, I really couldn't reproduce the performance improvement
the commit "sched: Implement smarter wake-affine logic" mentioned.
on the other hand, the commit log didn't present the pgbench command
parameter used. I guess the benchmark result will highly depend on
the command parameter and disk I/O speed.
Thanks
Barry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-07 13:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-20 0:18 [RFC PATCH v6 0/4] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler Barry Song
2021-04-20 0:18 ` [RFC PATCH v6 1/4] topology: Represent clusters of CPUs within a die Barry Song
2021-04-28 9:48 ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-30 3:46 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-04-20 0:18 ` [RFC PATCH v6 2/4] scheduler: add scheduler level for clusters Barry Song
2021-04-20 0:18 ` [RFC PATCH v6 3/4] scheduler: scan idle cpu in cluster for tasks within one LLC Barry Song
2021-04-27 11:35 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-04-28 9:51 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-04-28 13:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-28 16:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann
[not found] ` <185746c4d02a485ca8f3509439328b26@hisilicon.com>
2021-04-30 10:42 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-03 6:19 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-05-03 11:35 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-05-05 12:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-07 13:07 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) [this message]
2021-05-13 12:32 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-25 8:14 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-05-26 9:54 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
2021-04-20 0:18 ` [RFC PATCH v6 4/4] scheduler: Add cluster scheduler level for x86 Barry Song
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=aee3fd353a3a4bfca65aa1b78386f9b5@hisilicon.com \
--to=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=guodong.xu@linaro.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=liguozhu@hisilicon.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@openeuler.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=msys.mizuma@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xuwei5@huawei.com \
--cc=yangyicong@huawei.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).