| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA2XSmqt1L2X9WvdtdA5eqNYuhSws8jDOr1HA1xqXWfDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:52:39 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prefer idle CPU to cache affinity
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 17:41, Srikar Dronamraju
<srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On POWER8 and POWER9, the last level cache (L2) has been at the level of
> a group of 8 threads (SMT8 on POWER8, a big-core comprising of a pair of
> SMT4 cores on POWER9). However, on POWER10, the LLC domain is at the
> level of a group of SMT4 threads within the SMT8 core. Due to the
> shrinking in the size of the LLC domain, the probability of finding an
> idle CPU in the LLC domain of the target is lesser on POWER10 compared
> to the previous generation processors.
>
> With commit 9538abee18cc ("powerpc/smp: Add support detecting
> thread-groups sharing L2 cache") benchmarks such as Daytrader
> (https://github.com/WASdev/sample.daytrader7) show a drop in throughput
> in a configuration consisting of 1 JVM spanning across 6-8 Bigcores on
> POWER10. Analysis showed that this was because more number of wakeups
> were happening on busy CPUs when the utilization was 60-70%. This drop
> in throughput also shows up as a drop in CPU utilization. However most
> other benchmarks benefit with detecting the thread-groups that share L2
> cache.
>
> Current order of preference to pick a LLC while waking a wake-affine
> task:
> 1. Between the waker CPU and previous CPU, prefer the LLC of the CPU
> that is idle.
>
> 2. Between the waker CPU and previous CPU, prefer the LLC of the CPU
> that is less lightly loaded.
>
> In the current situation where waker and previous CPUs are busy, but
> only one of its LLC has an idle CPU, Scheduler may end up picking a LLC
> with no idle CPUs. To mitigate this, add a new step between 1 and 2
> where Scheduler compares idle CPUs in waker and previous LLCs and picks
> the appropriate one.
>
> The other alternative is to search for an idle CPU in the other LLC, if
> the current select_idle_sibling is unable to find an idle CPU in the
> preferred LLC. But that may increase the time to select a CPU.
>
>
> 5.11-rc6 5.11-rc6+revert 5.11-rc6+patch
> 8CORE/1JVM 80USERS throughput 6651.6 6716.3 (0.97%) 6940 (4.34%)
> sys/user:time 59.75/23.86 61.77/24.55 60/24
>
> 8CORE/2JVM 80USERS throughput 6425.4 6446.8 (0.33%) 6473.2 (0.74%)
> sys/user:time 70.59/24.25 72.28/23.77 70/24
>
> 8CORE/4JVM 80USERS throughput 5355.3 5551.2 (3.66%) 5586.6 (4.32%)
> sys/user:time 76.74/21.79 76.54/22.73 76/22
>
> 8CORE/8JVM 80USERS throughput 4420.6 4553.3 (3.00%) 4405.8 (-0.33%)
> sys/user:time 79.13/20.32 78.76/21.01 79/20
>
> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
> Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> Co-developed-by: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Co-developed-by: Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> kernel/sched/features.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8a8bd7b13634..d49bfcdc4a19 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5869,6 +5869,36 @@ wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> return this_eff_load < prev_eff_load ? this_cpu : nr_cpumask_bits;
> }
>
> +static int prefer_idler_llc(int this_cpu, int prev_cpu, int sync)
> +{
> + struct sched_domain_shared *tsds, *psds;
> + int pnr_busy, pllc_size, tnr_busy, tllc_size, diff;
> +
> + tsds = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, this_cpu));
> + tnr_busy = atomic_read(&tsds->nr_busy_cpus);
> + tllc_size = per_cpu(sd_llc_size, this_cpu);
> +
> + psds = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, prev_cpu));
> + pnr_busy = atomic_read(&psds->nr_busy_cpus);
> + pllc_size = per_cpu(sd_llc_size, prev_cpu);
> +
> + /* No need to compare, if both LLCs are fully loaded */
> + if (pnr_busy == pllc_size && tnr_busy == pllc_size)
> + return nr_cpumask_bits;
> +
> + if (sched_feat(WA_WAKER) && tnr_busy < tllc_size)
> + return this_cpu;
Why have you chosen to favor this_cpu instead of prev_cpu unlike for wake_idle ?
> +
> + /* For better wakeup latency, prefer idler LLC to cache affinity */
> + diff = tnr_busy * pllc_size - sync - pnr_busy * tllc_size;
> + if (!diff)
> + return nr_cpumask_bits;
> + if (diff < 0)
> + return this_cpu;
> +
> + return prev_cpu;
> +}
> +
> static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> int this_cpu, int prev_cpu, int sync)
> {
> @@ -5877,6 +5907,10 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> if (sched_feat(WA_IDLE))
> target = wake_affine_idle(this_cpu, prev_cpu, sync);
>
> + if (sched_feat(WA_IDLER_LLC) && target == nr_cpumask_bits &&
> + !cpus_share_cache(this_cpu, prev_cpu))
> + target = prefer_idler_llc(this_cpu, prev_cpu, sync);
could you use the same naming convention as others function ?
wake_affine_llc as an example
> +
> if (sched_feat(WA_WEIGHT) && target == nr_cpumask_bits)
> target = wake_affine_weight(sd, p, this_cpu, prev_cpu, sync);
>
> @@ -5884,8 +5918,11 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> if (target == nr_cpumask_bits)
> return prev_cpu;
>
> - schedstat_inc(sd->ttwu_move_affine);
> - schedstat_inc(p->se.statistics.nr_wakeups_affine);
> + if (target == this_cpu) {
How is this condition related to $subject ?
> + schedstat_inc(sd->ttwu_move_affine);
> + schedstat_inc(p->se.statistics.nr_wakeups_affine);
> + }
> +
> return target;
> }
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/features.h b/kernel/sched/features.h
> index 1bc2b158fc51..e2de3ba8d5b1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/features.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
> @@ -83,6 +83,8 @@ SCHED_FEAT(ATTACH_AGE_LOAD, true)
>
> SCHED_FEAT(WA_IDLE, true)
> SCHED_FEAT(WA_WEIGHT, true)
> +SCHED_FEAT(WA_IDLER_LLC, true)
> +SCHED_FEAT(WA_WAKER, false)
> SCHED_FEAT(WA_BIAS, true)
>
> /*
> --
> 2.18.4
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists