Message-ID: <CABS55+A_ZbJT4Tz-XfacbURpgfx2WuXqvPnn1_XkAfhxJMP6eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 May 2012 09:00:48 -0700
From:	Jason Garrett-Glaser <jason@...4.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Scheduler still seems awful with x264, worse with patches

Many months ago, the topic of CFS's inefficiencies with x264 came up
and some improvements were made, but BFS and Windows still stayed a
little bit in the lead.  This seemed to be because of a mix of two
issues.  Firstly, a combination of relatively short-lived jobs (x264
uses a thread pool, so the actual threads are long-lived).  Secondly,
in frame threads, heavy dependencies between threads, benefiting
greatly from a dumb scheduler.  Thirdly, in sliced threads -- the
focus of this post -- the best scheduling approach is to simply spread
them throughout the cores and do nothing, so again, a dumb scheduler
will do the right thing.

Recently I tried multithreading x264's lookahead for a customer.  The
lookahead previously wasn't threaded, causing bottlenecks with many
cores and threads.  I do my development mainly on Windows, and the
patch looked to be quite a success, with nice performance boosts for
many target use-cases.

And then I ran it on Linux and it choked horribly.

The patch is here:
https://github.com/DarkShikari/x264-devel/commit/99e830f1581eac3cf30f07b1d6c6c32bae1725c8
.  To replicate the test, simply test that version against the
previous version.  My guess is the reason it chokes is that it
involves spawning even *shorter*-lived jobs than x264 typically does,
something that CFS seems to simply collapse on.

Here's some stats from a recent kernel:

SD encoding (before -> after patch):
CFS: 325.49 +/- 1.22 fps -> 251.68 +/- 2.32 fps
BFS: 334.94 +/- 0.59 fps -> 344.47 +/- 0.68 fps

HD encoding (before -> after patch):
CFS: 39.05 +/- 0.22 fps -> 40.56 +/- 0.23 fps
BFS: 40.15 +/- 0.05 fps -> 44.89 +/- 0.05 fps

As can be seen, the longer the threads live (the lower the fps), the
less horrific the penalty is.  Furthermore, though I don't have
numbers, using schedtool -R -p 1 does basically as well as BFS in
eliminating the problem.  Naturally, this is not really a solution as
it requires root.

To replicate this test, a commandline like this should work on any
cached raw input file (a collection of free raw videos can be found
here if you don't like making your own:
http://media.xiph.org/video/derf/ ):

./x264 --preset superfast --tune zerolatency --threads X input -o /dev/null

Most of my testing was done with X = 4 or 8 on quad-core or
quad-core-with-HT machines.  Though I don't have numbers, I should
note that the absolute worst results are on a Core i7 machine where I
set taskset 0xf and used threads 4; the patch literally cut the
framerate in half, despite giving a performance boost when SCHED_RR
was used.

Jason

P.S.  Here is the structure of low-latency sliced threading with the
patch, for anyone curious.

To encode a frame with X threads:
1.  The previous frame's X threads are still going -- they're
finishing up hpel and deblock calculation, which can be done after the
encoder returns, but before the next frame is encoded.
2.  Serially, copy in the input frame and preprocess it, running
various not-yet-parallelized tasks while those threads finish up.
3.  In parallel, do lookahead analysis of the input frame -- split it
into X slices and analyze them simultaneously.  Then wait on the jobs
and merge the results.
4.  If any of the previous frame's threads are still going, wait on them now.
5.  Split the main encode into X slices and do them simultaneously.
Once they've all finished encoding -- after they've signaled the main
thread with a condition variable -- serially finish up a few minor
tasks and return to the caller.  These threads will continue until
step 4) of the next frame.

When encoding at ~300fps, the encode jobs will typically run for about
~3ms each, and the lookahead threads likely for around 0.5ms, very
roughly.  For a low-latency encoder, there is no way to make these
threads last longer while still getting parallelism, and it must be
doable because Windows handles it just fine.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists