[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211108115948.GH3959@techsingularity.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:59:48 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"Srinivasan, Sadagopan" <Sadagopan.Srinivasan@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when
SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:14:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 02:03:05PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > @@ -1926,8 +1926,8 @@ static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
> > src_running = env->src_stats.nr_running - 1;
> > dst_running = env->dst_stats.nr_running + 1;
> > imbalance = max(0, dst_running - src_running);
> > - imbalance = adjust_numa_imbalance(imbalance, dst_running,
> > - env->dst_stats.weight);
> > + imbalance = adjust_numa_imbalance(imbalance, env->dst_cpu,
> > + dst_running, env->dst_stats.weight);
>
> Can we please align at (0 ?
>
i.e.
imbalance = adjust_numa_imbalance(imbalance, env->dst_cpu,
dst_running,
env->dst_stats.weight);
?
> >
> > /* Use idle CPU if there is no imbalance */
> > if (!imbalance) {
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > index 4e8698e62f07..08fb02510967 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > @@ -644,6 +644,7 @@ static void destroy_sched_domains(struct sched_domain *sd)
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_llc);
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, sd_llc_size);
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, sd_llc_id);
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, sd_numaimb_shift);
>
> Why does it make sense for this to be a per-cpu variable? Yes, I suppose
> people can get creative with cpusets, but what you're trying to capture
> seems like a global system propery, no?
>
I thought things might get weird around CPU hotplug and as llc_size was
tracked per-cpu, I thought it made sense to also do it for
sd_numaimb_shift.
> At most this seems to want to be a sched_domain value.
>
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain_shared __rcu *, sd_llc_shared);
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_numa);
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_asym_packing);
> > @@ -672,6 +673,20 @@ static void update_top_cache_domain(int cpu)
> > sd = lowest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_NUMA);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_numa, cpu), sd);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Save the threshold where an imbalance is allowed between SD_NUMA
> > + * domains. If LLC spans the entire node, then imbalances are allowed
> > + * until 25% of the domain is active. Otherwise, allow an imbalance
> > + * up to the point where LLCs between NUMA nodes should be balanced
> > + * to maximise cache and memory bandwidth utilisation.
> > + */
> > + if (sd) {
> > + if (sd->span_weight == size)
> > + per_cpu(sd_numaimb_shift, cpu) = 2;
> > + else
> > + per_cpu(sd_numaimb_shift, cpu) = max(2, ilog2(sd->span_weight / size * num_online_nodes()));
> > + }
> > +
> > sd = highest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_ASYM_PACKING);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_asym_packing, cpu), sd);
>
> I think I'm with Valentin here, this seems like something that wants to
> use the sd/sd->child relation.
>
> That also makes this the wrong place to do things since this is after
> the degenerate code.
>
> Perhaps this can be done in sd_init(), after all, we build the thing
> bottom-up, so by the time we initialize the NODE, the MC level should
> already be present.
>
> I'm thinking you can perhaps use something like:
>
> if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESROUCES) &&
> (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
>
> /* this is the first domain not sharing LLC */
> sd->new_magic_imb = /* magic incantation goes here */
> }
Thanks, I'll give it a shot and see what I come up with, it'll probably
take me a few days to clear my table of other crud to focus on it.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists