[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <af3f6ea6-2c71-233f-fc6b-af039b004923@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:12:17 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
keescook@...omium.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, benbjiang@...cent.com,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] sched: migration changes for core scheduling
On 2021/3/22 15:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 09:34:00PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 2021/3/20 23:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:32:48PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>> @@ -7530,8 +7543,9 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
>>>> * We do not migrate tasks that are:
>>>> * 1) throttled_lb_pair, or
>>>> * 2) cannot be migrated to this CPU due to cpus_ptr, or
>>>> - * 3) running (obviously), or
>>>> - * 4) are cache-hot on their current CPU.
>>>> + * 3) task's cookie does not match with this CPU's core cookie
>>>> + * 4) running (obviously), or
>>>> + * 5) are cache-hot on their current CPU.
>>>> */
>>>> if (throttled_lb_pair(task_group(p), env->src_cpu, env->dst_cpu))
>>>> return 0;
>>>> @@ -7566,6 +7580,13 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Don't migrate task if the task's cookie does not match
>>>> + * with the destination CPU's core cookie.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!sched_core_cookie_match(cpu_rq(env->dst_cpu), p))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> /* Record that we found atleast one task that could run on dst_cpu */
>>>> env->flags &= ~LBF_ALL_PINNED;
>>>>
>>>
>>> This one is too strong.. persistent imbalance should be able to override
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, this change can avoid the following scenario:
>>
>> One sysbench cpu thread(cookieA) and sysbench mysql thread(cookieB) running
>> on the two siblings of core_1, the other sysbench cpu thread(cookieA) and
>> sysbench mysql thread(cookieB) running on the two siblings of core2, which
>> causes 50% force idle.
>>
>> This is not an imbalance case.
>
> But suppose there is an imbalance; then this cookie crud can forever
> stall balance.
>
> Imagine this cpu running a while(1); with a uniqie cookie on, then it
> will _never_ accept other tasks == BAD.
>
How about putting the following check in sched_core_cookie_match()?
+ /*
+ * Ignore cookie match if there is a big imbalance between the src rq
+ * and dst rq.
+ */
+ if ((src_rq->cfs.h_nr_running - rq->cfs.h_nr_running) > 1)
+ return true;
This change has significant impact of my sysbench cpu+mysql colocation.
- with this change,
sysbench cpu tput = 2796 events/s, sysbench mysql = 1315 events/s
- without it,
sysbench cpu tput= 3513 events/s, sysbench mysql = 646 events.
Do you have any suggestions before we drop it?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists