Message-ID: <5125A7C8.8020308@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:51:20 +0800
From:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, alex.shi@...el.com,
	Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair()

On 02/20/2013 06:49 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[snip]
> 
> The changes look clean and reasoable, any ideas exactly *why* it 
> speeds up?
> 
> I.e. are there one or two key changes in the before/after logic 
> and scheduling patterns that you can identify as causing the 
> speedup?

Hi, Ingo

Thanks for your reply, please let me point out the key changes here
(forgive me for haven't wrote a good description in cover).

The performance improvement from this patch set is:
1. delay the invoke on wake_affine().
2. save the circle to gain proper sd.

The second point is obviously, and will benefit a lot when the sd
topology is deep (NUMA is suppose to make it deeper on large system).

So in my testing on a 12 cpu box, actually most of the benefit comes
from the first point, and please let me introduce it in detail.

The old logical when locate affine_sd is:

	if prev_cpu != curr_cpu
		if wake_affine()
			prev_cpu = curr_cpu
	new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(prev_cpu)
	return new_cpu

The new logical is same to the old one if prev_cpu == curr_cpu, so let's
simplify the old logical like:

	if wake_affine()
		new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(curr_cpu)
	else
		new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(prev_cpu)

	return new_cpu

Actually that doesn't make sense.

I think wake_affine() is trying to check whether move a task from
prev_cpu to curr_cpu will break the balance in affine_sd or not, but why
won't break balance means curr_cpu is better than prev_cpu for searching
the idle cpu?

So the new logical in this patch set is:

	new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(prev_cpu)
	if idle_cpu(new_cpu)
		return new_cpu

	new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(curr_cpu)
	if idle_cpu(new_cpu) {
		if wake_affine()
			return new_cpu
	}

	return prev_cpu

And now, unless we are really going to move load from prev_cpu to
curr_cpu, we won't use wake_affine() any more.

So we avoid wake_affine() when system load is low or high, for middle
load, the worst cases is when failed to locate idle cpu in prev_cpu
topology but succeed to locate one in curr_cpu's, but that's rarely
happen and the benchmark results proved that point.

Some comparison below:

1. system load is low
	old logical cost:
		wake_affine()
		select_idle_sibling()
	new logical cost:
		select_idle_sibling()

2. system load is high
	old logical cost:
		wake_affine()
		select_idle_sibling()
	new logical cost:
		select_idle_sibling()
		select_idle_sibling()

3. system load is middle
	don't know

1 save the cost of wake_affine(), 3 could be proved by benchmark that no
regression at least.

For 2, it's the comparison between wake_affine() and
select_idle_sibling(), since the system load is high, wake_affine() cost
far more than select_idle_sibling(), and we saved many according to the
benchmark results.

> 
> Such changes also typically have a chance to cause regressions 
> in other workloads - when that happens we need this kind of 
> information to be able to enact plan-B.

The benefit comes from avoiding unnecessary works, and the patch set is
suppose to only reduce the cost of key function with least logical
changing, I could not promise it benefit all the workloads, but till
now, I've not found regression.

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
> 

--
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