Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Tue, 8 Dec 2020 17:14:37 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Do not replace recent_used_cpu with the new target |
| |
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 16:35, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote: > > After select_idle_sibling, p->recent_used_cpu is set to the > new target. However on the next wakeup, prev will be the same as > recent_used_cpu unless the load balancer has moved the task since the last > wakeup. It still works, but is less efficient than it can be after all > the changes that went in since that reduce unnecessary migrations, load > balancer changes etc. This patch preserves recent_used_cpu for longer. > > With tbench on a 2-socket CascadeLake machine, 80 logical CPUs, HT enabled > > 5.10.0-rc6 5.10.0-rc6 > baseline-v2 altrecent-v2 > Hmean 1 508.39 ( 0.00%) 502.05 * -1.25%* > Hmean 2 986.70 ( 0.00%) 983.65 * -0.31%* > Hmean 4 1914.55 ( 0.00%) 1920.24 * 0.30%* > Hmean 8 3702.37 ( 0.00%) 3663.96 * -1.04%* > Hmean 16 6573.11 ( 0.00%) 6545.58 * -0.42%* > Hmean 32 10142.57 ( 0.00%) 10253.73 * 1.10%* > Hmean 64 14348.40 ( 0.00%) 12506.31 * -12.84%* > Hmean 128 21842.59 ( 0.00%) 21967.13 * 0.57%* > Hmean 256 20813.75 ( 0.00%) 21534.52 * 3.46%* > Hmean 320 20684.33 ( 0.00%) 21070.14 * 1.87%* > > The different was marginal except for 64 threads which showed in the > baseline that the result was very unstable where as the patch was much > more stable. This is somewhat machine specific as on a separate 80-cpu > Broadwell machine the same test reported. > > 5.10.0-rc6 5.10.0-rc6 > baseline-v2 altrecent-v2 > Hmean 1 310.36 ( 0.00%) 291.81 * -5.98%* > Hmean 2 340.86 ( 0.00%) 547.22 * 60.54%* > Hmean 4 912.29 ( 0.00%) 1063.21 * 16.54%* > Hmean 8 2116.40 ( 0.00%) 2103.60 * -0.60%* > Hmean 16 4232.90 ( 0.00%) 4362.92 * 3.07%* > Hmean 32 8442.03 ( 0.00%) 8642.10 * 2.37%* > Hmean 64 11733.91 ( 0.00%) 11473.66 * -2.22%* > Hmean 128 17727.24 ( 0.00%) 16784.23 * -5.32%* > Hmean 256 16089.23 ( 0.00%) 16110.79 * 0.13%* > Hmean 320 15992.60 ( 0.00%) 16071.64 * 0.49%* > > schedstats were not used in this series but from an earlier debugging > effort, the schedstats after the test run were as follows; > > Ops SIS Search 5653107942.00 5726545742.00 > Ops SIS Domain Search 3365067916.00 3319768543.00 > Ops SIS Scanned 112173512543.00 99194352541.00 > Ops SIS Domain Scanned 109885472517.00 96787575342.00 > Ops SIS Failures 2923185114.00 2950166441.00 > Ops SIS Recent Used Hit 56547.00 118064916.00 > Ops SIS Recent Used Miss 1590899250.00 354942791.00 > Ops SIS Recent Attempts 1590955797.00 473007707.00 > Ops SIS Search Efficiency 5.04 5.77 > Ops SIS Domain Search Eff 3.06 3.43 > Ops SIS Fast Success Rate 40.47 42.03 > Ops SIS Success Rate 48.29 48.48 > Ops SIS Recent Success Rate 0.00 24.96 > > First interesting point is the ridiculous number of times runqueues are > enabled -- almost 97 billion times over the course of 40 minutes > > With the patch, "Recent Used Hit" is over 2000 times more likely to > succeed. The failure rate also increases by quite a lot but the cost is > marginal even if the "Fast Success Rate" only increases by 2% overall. What > cannot be observed from these stats is where the biggest impact as these > stats cover low utilisation to over saturation. > > If graphed over time, the graphs show that the sched domain is only > scanned at negligible rates until the machine is fully busy. With > low utilisation, the "Fast Success Rate" is almost 100% until the > machine is fully busy. For 320 clients, the success rate is close to > 0% which is unsurprising. > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +-------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index 5c41875aec23..413d895bbbf8 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -6277,17 +6277,13 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target) > > /* Check a recently used CPU as a potential idle candidate: */ > recent_used_cpu = p->recent_used_cpu; > + p->recent_used_cpu = prev; > if (recent_used_cpu != prev && > recent_used_cpu != target && > cpus_share_cache(recent_used_cpu, target) && > (available_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu)) && > cpumask_test_cpu(p->recent_used_cpu, p->cpus_ptr) && > asym_fits_capacity(task_util, recent_used_cpu)) { > - /* > - * Replace recent_used_cpu with prev as it is a potential > - * candidate for the next wake: > - */ > - p->recent_used_cpu = prev; > return recent_used_cpu; > } > > @@ -6768,9 +6764,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags) > } else if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU) { /* XXX always ? */ > /* Fast path */ > new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu); > - > - if (want_affine) > - current->recent_used_cpu = cpu; > } > rcu_read_unlock(); > > -- > 2.26.2 >
| |