Message-Id: <80bb34ec-6358-f4dc-d20d-cde6c9d7e197@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 22:23:58 +0530
From:   Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 4/6] sched/fair: Tune task wake-up logic to pack small
 background tasks on fewer cores



On 10/7/19 5:49 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 10:31, Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> The algorithm finds the first non idle core in the system and tries to
>> place a task in the idle CPU in the chosen core. To maintain
>> cache hotness, work of finding non idle core starts from the prev_cpu,
>> which also reduces task ping-pong behaviour inside of the core.
>>
>> Define a new method to select_non_idle_core which keep tracks of the idle
>> and non-idle CPUs in the core and based on the heuristics determines if the
>> core is sufficiently busy to place the incoming backgroung task. The
>> heuristic further defines the non-idle CPU into either busy (>12.5% util)
>> CPU and overutilized (>80% util) CPU.
>> - The core containing more idle CPUs and no busy CPUs is not selected for
>>   packing
>> - The core if contains more than 1 overutilized CPUs are exempted from
>>   task packing
>> - Pack if there is atleast one busy CPU and overutilized CPUs count is <2
>>
>> Value of 12.5% utilization for busy CPU gives sufficient heuristics for CPU
>> doing enough work and not become idle in nearby timeframe.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/core.c |  3 ++
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 6e1ae8046fe0..7e3aff59540a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -6402,6 +6402,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *task_group_cache __read_mostly;
>>
>>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, load_balance_mask);
>>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, select_idle_mask);
>> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, turbo_sched_mask);
>>
>>  void __init sched_init(void)
>>  {
>> @@ -6442,6 +6443,8 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
>>                         cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(i));
>>                 per_cpu(select_idle_mask, i) = (cpumask_var_t)kzalloc_node(
>>                         cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(i));
>> +               per_cpu(turbo_sched_mask, i) = (cpumask_var_t)kzalloc_node(
>> +                       cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(i));
>>         }
>>  #endif /* CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK */
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index b798fe7ff7cd..d4a1b6474338 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5353,6 +5353,8 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>>  /* Working cpumask for: load_balance, load_balance_newidle. */
>>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, load_balance_mask);
>>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, select_idle_mask);
>> +/* A cpumask to find active cores in the system. */
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, turbo_sched_mask);
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
>>
>> @@ -5964,6 +5966,76 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>>         return cpu;
>>  }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
>> +static inline bool is_background_task(struct task_struct *p)
>> +{
>> +       if (p->flags & PF_CAN_BE_PACKED)
>> +               return true;
>> +
>> +       return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define busyness_threshold     (100 >> 3)
>> +#define is_cpu_busy(util) ((util) > busyness_threshold)
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Try to find a non idle core in the system  based on few heuristics:
>> + * - Keep track of overutilized (>80% util) and busy (>12.5% util) CPUs
>> + * - If none CPUs are busy then do not select the core for task packing
>> + * - If atleast one CPU is busy then do task packing unless overutilized CPUs
>> + *   count is < busy/2 CPU count
>> + * - Always select idle CPU for task packing
>> + */
>> +static int select_non_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int target)
>> +{
>> +       struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(turbo_sched_mask);
>> +       int iter_cpu, sibling;
>> +
>> +       cpumask_and(cpus, cpu_online_mask, p->cpus_ptr);
>> +
>> +       for_each_cpu_wrap(iter_cpu, cpus, prev_cpu) {
>> +               int idle_cpu_count = 0, non_idle_cpu_count = 0;
>> +               int overutil_cpu_count = 0;
>> +               int busy_cpu_count = 0;
>> +               int best_cpu = iter_cpu;
>> +
>> +               for_each_cpu(sibling, cpu_smt_mask(iter_cpu)) {
>> +                       __cpumask_clear_cpu(sibling, cpus);
>> +                       if (idle_cpu(iter_cpu)) {
>> +                               idle_cpu_count++;
>> +                               best_cpu = iter_cpu;
>> +                       } else {
>> +                               non_idle_cpu_count++;
>> +                               if (cpu_overutilized(iter_cpu))
>> +                                       overutil_cpu_count++;
>> +                               if (is_cpu_busy(cpu_util(iter_cpu)))
>> +                                       busy_cpu_count++;
>> +                       }
>> +               }
>> +
>> +               /*
>> +                * Pack tasks to this core if
>> +                * 1. Idle CPU count is higher and atleast one is busy
>> +                * 2. If idle_cpu_count < non_idle_cpu_count then ideally do
>> +                * packing but if there are more CPUs overutilized then don't
>> +                * overload it.
> 
> Could you give details about the rationale behind these conditions ?

sure. but first maybe some background is required for busy_cpu.
Task packing needs to be done across cores minimizing number of busy cores
in the chip. Hence when picking a core for packing a background task it
will be good to not select a core which is in deeper idle-states.

Usually deeper idle states have target_residency >= 10ms which are really
power saving states and saved power can be channeled to active cores.
A CPU with utilization of 12.5% is most probably not going to those deeper
idle states and picking a CPU with >= 12.5% util seems to be a good
approximation.

Now going to the _main point_, task packing needs to take care of the
following scenarios:
1. Not select a core having all the CPUs idle or <= 12.5% util
2. Do not select a core with 2 or more CPUs overloaded (>=80% util)
3. Select a core even if 1 CPU is overloaded as background tasks are
usually short running and spending time for selecting better alternative is
not worth the investment here
4. Select a core if at least one CPU is busy (>=12.5% util)
5. On selecting a core, select an idle CPU in it.

Hence to satisfy this scenarios for SMT-1/2/4 (POWER9) or 8 (POWER8 has
8-threads per core/ POWER9 has feature to make fake SMT-8), the approach
keeps track of idle, non-idle, busy and overloaded CPU count in the core
and uses above approach to find _sufficiently_ non-idle core, which seems
to be a good heuristics to do task packing without much of regression on
CPU intensive threads.

So as per the comments in this patch, first point covers the scenario 1 and
4 (if part in the code), and second point covers scenario 2 and 3 (else
part in the code).

>> +                */
>> +               if (idle_cpu_count > non_idle_cpu_count) {
>> +                       if (busy_cpu_count)
>> +                               return best_cpu;
>> +               } else {
>> +                       /*
>> +                        * Pack tasks if at max 1 CPU is overutilized
>> +                        */
>> +                       if (overutil_cpu_count < 2)
>> +                               return best_cpu;
>> +               }
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, target);
>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_SMT */
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Try and locate an idle core/thread in the LLC cache domain.
>>   */
>> @@ -6418,6 +6490,23 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>>         return -1;
>>  }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
>> +/*
>> + * Select all classified background tasks for task packing
>> + */
>> +static inline int turbosched_select_non_idle_core(struct task_struct *p,
>> +                                                 int prev_cpu, int target)
>> +{
>> +       return select_non_idle_core(p, prev_cpu, target);
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline int turbosched_select_non_idle_core(struct task_struct *p,
>> +                                                 int prev_cpu, int target)
>> +{
>> +       return select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, target);
> 
> should be better to make turbosched_select_non_idle_core empty and
> make sure that __turbo_sched_enabled is never enabled if
> CONFIG_SCHED_SMT is disabled
> 

Totally agreed. I thought keeping like this so as to not have any "#def.."
in select_task_rq_fair method.
So can I do this by adding a new method like __select_idle_sibling() which
will call turbosched_select_non_idle_core() in case of SCHED_SMT present
and otherwise will call the regular select_idle_sibling()?

>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * select_task_rq_fair: Select target runqueue for the waking task in domains
>>   * that have the 'sd_flag' flag set. In practice, this is SD_BALANCE_WAKE,
>> @@ -6483,7 +6572,11 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_f
>>         } else if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) { /* XXX always ? */
>>                 /* Fast path */
>>
>> -               new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu);
>> +               if (is_turbosched_enabled() && unlikely(is_background_task(p)))
>> +                       new_cpu = turbosched_select_non_idle_core(p, prev_cpu,
>> +                                                                 new_cpu);
> 
> Could you add turbosched_select_non_idle_core() similarly to
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() ?
> Add it at the beg select_task_rq_fair()
> Return immediately with theCPU if you have found one
> Or let the normal path select a CPU if the
> turbosched_select_non_idle_core() has not been able to find a suitable
> CPU for packing
> 

of course. I can do that.
I was just not aware about the effect of wake_affine and so was waiting for
such comments to be sure of. Thanks for this.
Maybe I can add just below the sched_energy_present(){...} construct giving
precedence to EAS? I'm asking this because I remember Patrick telling me to
leverage task packing for android as well?


Thank you very much for looking at the patches.
Parth

> 
>> +               else
>> +                       new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu);
>>
>>                 if (want_affine)
>>                         current->recent_used_cpu = cpu;
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists