lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/fair: update_pick_idlest() Select group with lowest group_util when idle_cpus are equal
Date

On 16/06/20 17:48, peter.puhov@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Peter Puhov <peter.puhov@linaro.org>
> We tested this patch with following benchmarks:
> perf bench -f simple sched pipe -l 4000000
> perf bench -f simple sched messaging -l 30000
> perf bench -f simple mem memset -s 3GB -l 15 -f default
> perf bench -f simple futex wake -s -t 640 -w 1
> sysbench cpu --threads=8 --cpu-max-prime=10000 run
> sysbench memory --memory-access-mode=rnd --threads=8 run
> sysbench threads --threads=8 run
> sysbench mutex --mutex-num=1 --threads=8 run
> hackbench --loops 20000
> hackbench --pipe --threads --loops 20000
> hackbench --pipe --threads --loops 20000 --datasize 4096
>
> and found some performance improvements in:
> sysbench threads
> sysbench mutex
> perf bench futex wake
> and no regressions in others.
>

One nitpick for the results of those: condensing them in a table form would
make them more reader-friendly. Perhaps something like:

| Benchmark | Metric | Lower is better? | BASELINE | SERIES | DELTA |
|------------------+----------+------------------+----------+--------+-------|
| Sysbench threads | # events | No | 45526 | 56567 | +24% |
| Sysbench mutex | ... | | | | |

If you want to include more stats for each benchmark, you could have one table
per (e.g. see [1]) - it'd still be a more readable form (or so I believe).

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200206191957.12325-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com/

> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 02f323b85b6d..abcbdf80ee75 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8662,8 +8662,14 @@ static bool update_pick_idlest(struct sched_group *idlest,
>
> case group_has_spare:
> /* Select group with most idle CPUs */
> - if (idlest_sgs->idle_cpus >= sgs->idle_cpus)
> + if (idlest_sgs->idle_cpus > sgs->idle_cpus)
> return false;
> +
> + /* Select group with lowest group_util */
> + if (idlest_sgs->idle_cpus == sgs->idle_cpus &&
> + idlest_sgs->group_util <= sgs->group_util)
> + return false;
> +
> break;
> }

update_sd_pick_busiest() uses the group's nr_running instead. You mention
in the changelog that using nr_running is a possible alternative, did you
try benchmarking that and seeing how it compares to using group_util?

I think it would be nice to keep pick_busiest() and pick_idlest() aligned
wherever possible/sensible.

Also, there can be cases where one group has a few "big" tasks and another
has a handful more "small" tasks. Say something like

sgs_a->group_util = U
sgs_a->sum_nr_running = N

sgs_b->group_util = U*4/3
sgs_b->sum_nr_running = N*2/3

(sgs_b has more util per task, i.e. bigger tasks on average)

Given that we're in the 'group_has_spare' case, I would think picking the
group with the lesser amount of running tasks would make sense. Though I
guess you can find pathological cases where the util per task difference is
huge and we should look at util first...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-17 12:53    [W:0.079 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site