[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1407187656.11985.20.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:27:36 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: bsegall@...gle.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 13:52 -0700, bsegall@...gle.com wrote:
> Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> writes:
>
> > When running workloads on 2+ socket systems, based on perf profiles, the
> > update_cfs_rq_blocked_load function constantly shows up as taking up a
> > noticeable % of run time. This is especially apparent on an 8 socket
> > machine. For example, when running the AIM7 custom workload, we see:
> >
> > 4.18% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] update_cfs_rq_blocked_load
> >
> > Much of the contention is in __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib when we
> > update the tg load contribution stats. However, it turns out that in many
> > cases, they don't need to be updated and "tg_contrib" is 0.
> >
> > This patch adds a check in __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib to skip updating
> > tg load contribution stats when nothing needs to be updated. This reduces the
> > cacheline contention that would be unnecessary. In the above case, with the
> > patch, perf reports the total time spent in this function went down by more
> > than a factor of 3x:
> >
> > 1.18% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] update_cfs_rq_blocked_load
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
> Reviewed-by: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
>
> That said, it might be better to remove force_update for this function,
> or make it just reduce the minimum to /64 or something. If the test is
> easy to run it would be good to see what it's like just removing the
> force_update param for this function to see if it's worth worrying
> about or if the zero case catches ~all the perf gain.
Sure, I can test that out too. I did notice when running another AIM7
workload that !zero was the more common case, so this has the potential
to further reduce contention.
> Paul, your thoughts?
--
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