Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Oct 2023 21:48:49 +0200 (CEST) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: EEVDF and NUMA balancing |
| |
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 02:01:26PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 10:25:08PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > Is it expected that the commit e8f331bcc270 should have an impact on the > > > > > > frequency of NUMA balancing? > > > > > > > > > > Definitely not expected. The only effect of that commit was supposed to > > > > > be the runqueue order of tasks. I'll go stare at it in the morning -- > > > > > definitely too late for critical thinking atm. > > > > > > > > Maybe it's just randomly making a bad situation worse rather than directly > > > > introduing a problem. There is a high standard deviatind in the > > > > performance. Here are some results with hyperfine. The general trends > > > > are reproducible. > > > > > > OK,. I'm still busy trying to bring a 4 socket machine up-to-date... > > > gawd I hate the boot times on those machines :/ > > > > > > But yeah, I was thinking similar things, I really can't spot an obvious > > > fail in that commit. > > > > > > I'll go have a poke once the darn machine is willing to submit :-) > > > > I tried a two-socket machine, but in 50 runs the problem doesn't show up. > > > > The commit e8f331bcc270 starts with > > > > - if (sched_feat(PLACE_LAG) && cfs_rq->nr_running > 1) { > > + if (sched_feat(PLACE_LAG) && cfs_rq->nr_running) { > > > > This seemed like a big change - cfs_rq->nr_running > 1 should be rarely > > true in ua, while cfs_rq->nr_running should always be true. Adding back > > the > 1 and simply replacing the test by 0 both had no effect, though. > > BTW., in terms of statistical reliability, one of the biggest ... > stochastic elements of scheduler balancing is wakeup-preemption - which > you can turn off via: > > echo NO_WAKEUP_PREEMPTION > /debug/sched/features > > or: > > echo NO_WAKEUP_PREEMPTION > /sys/kernel/debug/sched/features > > If you can measure a performance regression with WAKEUP_PREEMPTION turned > off in *both* kernels, there's likely a material change (regression) in the > quality of NUMA load-balancing.
This is the one that is the case. In 76cae9dbe185, which is the parent of e8f331bcc270, there are some runtimes that are a bit slower than with WAKEUP_PREEMPTION enabled, but e8f331bcc270 now has a lot more larger numbers.
julia
:::::::::::::: ua.C.x_yeti-4_g76cae9dbe185_performance.json :::::::::::::: { "results": [ { "command": "./ua.C.x", "mean": 31.74652352868501, "stddev": 7.549670079336034, "median": 30.825414389609996, "user": 4026.9165747550005, "system": 10.66025179, "min": 21.93520805911, "max": 60.24540388411, "times": [ 29.249717538109998, 25.16879339411, 27.684410376109998, 25.03525483911, 28.33494802611, 35.398653784109996, 31.886805430109998, 33.34682179411, 35.09637591511, 28.834901557109998, 37.71707762411, 50.09627815011, 29.848774250109997, 33.66924291011, 25.62988106911, 21.93520805911, 37.52640704311, 26.35386307811, 23.05612102511, 25.65851957311, 33.62976770911, 22.55545402511, 35.509719604109996, 47.88084531411, 27.17976105411, 34.56864677911, 34.40073639211, 35.77985792611, 31.57792414811, 60.24540388411, 35.10386024211, 32.36256473411, 31.019663444109998, 25.05048613411, 30.631165335109998, 25.21739748711, 28.57051109611, 29.122454695109997, 31.79110048411, 26.13556522311 ] } ] } :::::::::::::: ua.C.x_yeti-4_ge8f331bcc270_performance.json :::::::::::::: { "results": [ { "command": "./ua.C.x", "mean": 45.55904025022, "stddev": 24.917491037841696, "median": 34.83258273512, "user": 5760.045859355001, "system": 10.244032225000002, "min": 21.96719301362, "max": 105.35666167362, "times": [ 80.22088338362, 34.76734203462, 32.01118466362, 105.35666167362, 28.23154239862, 39.79766051762, 26.89012012362, 21.96719301362, 25.05284109962, 62.19280101062, 84.22492245362, 78.83791121262, 25.67714166762, 76.34033861162, 27.57704435562, 27.83207362162, 30.93298156162, 31.29140204262, 38.02797884462, 23.80228286862, 91.19093656262, 41.32158529962, 36.27444925062, 28.47759006162, 36.42187360462, 26.13298492862, 32.64434456262, 25.03750352662, 42.02328407262, 25.30765174962, 37.82597961162, 34.89782343562, 73.64093796562, 34.05860726262, 78.25896451662, 27.36415754262, 35.27277725262, 27.48229668562, 85.76905357362, 101.92650138361999 ] } ] }
> > If it goes away or changes dramatically with WAKEUP_PREEMPTION off, then > I'd pin this effect to EEVDF causing timing changes that are subtly > shifting NUMA & SMP balancing decisions past some critical threshold that > is detrimental to this particular workload. > > ( Obviously both are regressions we care about - but doing this test would > help categorize the nature of the regression. ) > > Thanks, > > Ingo >
| |