| 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: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:53:26 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "valentin.schneider@....com" <valentin.schneider@....com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxarm@...neuler.org" <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
"xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...wei.com>,
"Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
"tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and
add cluster scheduler
On 08/01/2021 22:30, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Morten Rasmussen [mailto:morten.rasmussen@....com]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 4:13 AM
>> To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>;
>> valentin.schneider@....com; catalin.marinas@....com; will@...nel.org;
>> rjw@...ysocki.net; vincent.guittot@...aro.org; lenb@...nel.org;
>> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>;
>> mingo@...hat.com; peterz@...radead.org; juri.lelli@...hat.com;
>> dietmar.eggemann@....com; rostedt@...dmis.org; bsegall@...gle.com;
>> mgorman@...e.de; mark.rutland@....com; sudeep.holla@....com;
>> aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org;
>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org;
>> linuxarm@...neuler.org; xuwei (O) <xuwei5@...wei.com>; Zengtao (B)
>> <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>; tiantao (H) <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and
>> add cluster scheduler
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 03:16:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> On 1/6/21 12:30 AM, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> ARM64 server chip Kunpeng 920 has 6 clusters in each NUMA node, and each
>>>> cluster has 4 cpus. All clusters share L3 cache data while each cluster
>>>> has local L3 tag. On the other hand, each cluster will share some
>>>> internal system bus. This means cache is much more affine inside one cluster
>>>> than across clusters.
>>>
>>> There is a similar need for clustering in x86. Some x86 cores could share
>> L2 caches that
>>> is similar to the cluster in Kupeng 920 (e.g. on Jacobsville there are 6 clusters
>>> of 4 Atom cores, each cluster sharing a separate L2, and 24 cores sharing
>> L3).
>>> Having a sched domain at the L2 cluster helps spread load among
>>> L2 domains. This will reduce L2 cache contention and help with
>>> performance for low to moderate load scenarios.
>>
>> IIUC, you are arguing for the exact opposite behaviour, i.e. balancing
>> between L2 caches while Barry is after consolidating tasks within the
>> boundaries of a L3 tag cache. One helps cache utilization, the other
>> communication latency between tasks. Am I missing something?
>
> Morten, this is not true.
>
> we are both actually looking for the same behavior. My patch also
> has done the exact same behavior of spreading with Tim's patch.
That's the case for the load-balance path because of the extra Sched
Domain (SD) (CLS/MC_L2) below MC.
But in wakeup you add code which leads to a different packing strategy.
It looks like that Tim's workload (SPECrate mcf) shows a performance
boost solely because of the changes the additional MC_L2 SD introduces
in load balance. The wakeup path is unchanged, i.e. llc-packing. IMHO we
have to carefully distinguish between packing vs. spreading in wakeup
and load-balance here.
> Considering the below two cases:
> Case 1. we have two tasks without any relationship running in a system with 2 clusters and 8 cpus.
>
> Without the sched_domain of cluster, these two tasks might be put as below:
> +-------------------+ +-----------------+
> | +----+ +----+ | | |
> | |task| |task| | | |
> | |1 | |2 | | | |
> | +----+ +----+ | | |
> | | | |
> | cluster1 | | cluster2 |
> +-------------------+ +-----------------+
> With the sched_domain of cluster, load balance will spread them as below:
> +-------------------+ +-----------------+
> | +----+ | | +----+ |
> | |task| | | |task| |
> | |1 | | | |2 | |
> | +----+ | | +----+ |
> | | | |
> | cluster1 | | cluster2 |
> +-------------------+ +-----------------+
>
> Then task1 and tasks2 get more cache and decrease cache contention.
> They will get better performance.
>
> That is what my original patch also can make. And tim's patch
> is also doing. Once we add a sched_domain, load balance will
> get involved.
>
>
> Case 2. we have 8 tasks, running in a system with 2 clusters and 8 cpus.
> But they are working in 4 groups:
> Task1 wakes up task4
> Task2 wakes up task5
> Task3 wakes up task6
> Task4 wakes up task7
>
> With my changing in select_idle_sibling, the WAKE_AFFINE mechanism will
> try to put task1 and 4, task2 and 5, task3 and 6, task4 and 7 in same clusters rather
> than putting all of them in the random one of the 8 cpus. However, the 8 tasks
> are still spreading among the 8 cpus with my change in select_idle_sibling
> as load balance is still working.
>
> +---------------------------+ +----------------------+
> | +----+ +-----+ | | +----+ +-----+ |
> | |task| |task | | | |task| |task | |
> | |1 | | 4 | | | |2 | |5 | |
> | +----+ +-----+ | | +----+ +-----+ |
> | | | |
> | cluster1 | | cluster2 |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | +-----+ +------+ | | +-----+ +------+ |
> | |task | | task | | | |task | |task | |
> | |3 | | 6 | | | |4 | |8 | |
> | +-----+ +------+ | | +-----+ +------+ |
> +---------------------------+ +----------------------+
Your use-case (#tasks, runtime/period) seems to be perfectly crafted to
show the benefit of your patch on your specific system (cluster-size =
4). IMHO, this extra infrastructure especially in the wakeup path should
show benefits over a range of different benchmarks.
> Let's consider the 3rd case, that one would be more tricky:
>
> task1 and task2 have close relationship and they are waker-wakee pair.
> With my current patch, select_idle_sidling() wants to put them in one
> cluster, load balance wants to put them in two clusters. Load balance will win.
> Then maybe we need some same mechanism like adjusting numa imbalance:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/kernel/sched/fair.c?id=b396f52326de20
> if we permit a light imbalance between clusters, select_idle_sidling()
> will win. And task1 and task2 get better cache affinity.
This would look weird to allow this kind of imbalance on CLS (MC_L2) and
NUMA domains but not on the MC domain for example.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists