| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 14:29:37 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@...aro.org>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 0/2] sched/fair: Fallback to sched-idle CPU for better performance
Hi Song,
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 23:54, Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:38 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is another attempt to get some benefit out of the sched-idle
> > policy. The previous version [1] focused on getting better power numbers
> > and this version tries to get better performance or lower response time
> > for the tasks.
> >
> > The first patch is unchanged from v1 and accumulates
> > information about sched-idle tasks per CPU.
> >
> > The second patch changes the way the target CPU is selected in the fast
> > path. Currently, we target for an idle CPU in select_idle_sibling() to
> > run the next task, but in case we don't find idle CPUs it is better to
> > pick a CPU which will run the task the soonest, for performance reason.
> > A CPU which isn't idle but has only SCHED_IDLE activity queued on it
> > should be a good target based on this criteria as any normal fair task
> > will most likely preempt the currently running SCHED_IDLE task
> > immediately. In fact, choosing a SCHED_IDLE CPU shall give better
> > results as it should be able to run the task sooner than an idle CPU
> > (which requires to be woken up from an idle state).
> >
> > Basic testing is done with the help of rt-app currently to make sure the
> > task is getting placed correctly.
>
> I run some test with this set on our (Facebook's) web service (main job)
> and ffmpeg (side job). The result looks promising.
>
> For all the tests below, I run the web service with same load level; and
> the side job with SCHED_IDLE. I presented schedule latency distribution
> of the main job. The latency distribution is measured with the runqlat tool:
> https://github.com/iovisor/bpftrace/blob/master/tools/runqlat.bt
>
> I modified the tool to only track wake up latency of the main job.
>
> 4 cases are compared here:
>
> 1. w/o this set, w/o side job;
> 2. w/ this set, w/o side job;
> 3. w/o this set, w/ side job;
> 4. w/ this set, w/ side job;
>
>
> Case #1. w/o this set, w/o side job
> @usecs:
> [1] 1705 | |
> [2, 4) 1102086 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
> [4, 8) 329160 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [8, 16) 34135 |@ |
> [16, 32) 37466 |@ |
> [32, 64) 15700 | |
> [64, 128) 8759 | |
> [128, 256) 5714 | |
> [256, 512) 3718 | |
> [512, 1K) 2152 | |
> [1K, 2K) 882 | |
> [2K, 4K) 256 | |
> [4K, 8K) 48 | |
> [8K, 16K) 2 | |
>
> Case #2. w/ this set, w/o side job;
> @usecs:
> [1] 2121 | |
> [2, 4) 1251877 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
> [4, 8) 401517 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [8, 16) 64325 |@@ |
> [16, 32) 74352 |@@@ |
> [32, 64) 40583 |@ |
> [64, 128) 26129 |@ |
> [128, 256) 18612 | |
> [256, 512) 12863 | |
> [512, 1K) 8304 | |
> [1K, 2K) 4072 | |
> [2K, 4K) 1569 | |
> [4K, 8K) 411 | |
> [8K, 16K) 70 | |
> [16K, 32K) 1 | |
>
> From #1 and #2, we see this set probably adds a little overhead to
> scheduling when there is no side job. But the overhead is clearly very
> small.
>
>
> Case #3. w/o this set, w/ side job;
> @usecs:
> [1] 1282 | |
> [2, 4) 260977 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [4, 8) 446120 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
> [8, 16) 136927 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [16, 32) 148758 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [32, 64) 160291 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [64, 128) 177292 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [128, 256) 184573 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [256, 512) 173405 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [512, 1K) 149662 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [1K, 2K) 120217 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [2K, 4K) 80275 |@@@@@@@@@ |
> [4K, 8K) 36108 |@@@@ |
> [8K, 16K) 11121 |@ |
> [16K, 32K) 736 | |
> [32K, 64K) 19 | |
>
> Case #4. w/ this set, w/ side job;
> @usecs:
> [1] 407 | |
> [2, 4) 535378 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> [4, 8) 795526 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
> [8, 16) 93032 |@@@@@@ |
> [16, 32) 89890 |@@@@@ |
> [32, 64) 82775 |@@@@@ |
> [64, 128) 84413 |@@@@@ |
> [128, 256) 84413 |@@@@@ |
> [256, 512) 77202 |@@@@@ |
> [512, 1K) 66043 |@@@@ |
> [1K, 2K) 49276 |@@@ |
> [2K, 4K) 30114 |@ |
> [4K, 8K) 11145 | |
> [8K, 16K) 2328 | |
> [16K, 32K) 88 | |
>
> #3 and #4 clearly showed the benefit of this set. With this set, we see
> significantly fewer latency values in the 8usecs+ ranges.
>
Thanks for running tests with this patchset, your results looks goods
with a significant decrease of long wakeup latency.
Vincent
> Thanks,
> Song
>
> >
> > --
> > viresh
> >
> > Viresh Kumar (2):
> > sched: Start tracking SCHED_IDLE tasks count in cfs_rq
> > sched/fair: Fallback to sched-idle CPU if idle CPU isn't found
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > kernel/sched/sched.h | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1543229820.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists