linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Clear target from cpus to scan in select_idle

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:38:19 +0800
From:   Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:     <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <bsegall@...gle.com>, <bristot@...hat.com>,
        <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>, <prime.zeng@...wei.com>,
        <linuxarm@...wei.com>, <21cnbao@...il.com>,
        "shenyang (M)" <shenyang39@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Clear target from cpus to scan in
 select_idle_cpu

On 2021/11/25 20:46, Yicong Yang wrote:
> On 2021/11/25 19:17, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:54:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>> Commit 56498cfb045d noticed that "When select_idle_cpu starts scanning for
>>> an idle CPU, it starts with a target CPU that has already been checked
>>> by select_idle_sibling. This patch starts with the next CPU instead."
>>> It only changed the scanning start cpu to target + 1 but still leave
>>> the target in the scanning cpumask. The target still have a chance to be
>>> checked in the last turn. Fix this by clear the target from the cpus
>>> to scan.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 56498cfb045d ("sched/fair: Avoid a second scan of target in select_idle_cpu")
>>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
>>
>> Did you check the performance of this? When I tried something like this
>> in a different context, I found that the cost of clearing the bit was
>> more expensive than simply using target + 1. For the target to be
>> rescanned, the whole mask would have to be scanned as no other CPUs are
>> idle which is the unlikely case. By clearing the bit, a cost is always
>> incurred even if the first CPU scanned is idle.
>>
> 
> Not yet, it's from code. I've launched some tests and we'll see the results tomorrow.
> 
> We traced the scanning here and seems the case that scan the whole LLC without
> finding an idle cpu has some proportion. On 4-NUMA 128-Core Kunpeng 920 server
> tested with mysql, there is ~1% probability for not finding and idle cpu when
> sysbench threads is 128. The probability will increase when the load increases.
> .
> 

Hi Mel,

I tested hackbench and tbench on our machine with
numactl -N 0 run-mmtests.sh -c $config

config-workload-hackbench-process-pipes
                          5.16-rc1         5.16-rc1+patch
Amean     1       0.5178 (   0.00%)      0.5207 (  -0.56%)
Amean     4       1.0108 (   0.00%)      0.9274 (   8.25%)
Amean     7       1.9349 (   0.00%)      1.8508 (   4.35%)
Amean     12      3.4179 (   0.00%)      3.3170 (   2.95%)
Amean     21      5.9209 (   0.00%)      5.8878 (   0.56%)
Amean     30      6.8677 (   0.00%)      6.6241 *   3.55%*
Amean     48     10.3759 (   0.00%)      9.5785 *   7.69%*
Amean     64     13.4606 (   0.00%)     12.3713 *   8.09%*

config-network-tbench
                            5.16-rc1         5.16-rc1+patch
Hmean     1        324.56 (   0.00%)      324.01 *  -0.17%*
Hmean     2        650.91 (   0.00%)      646.89 *  -0.62%*
Hmean     4       1291.16 (   0.00%)     1298.56 *   0.57%*
Hmean     8       2625.06 (   0.00%)     2615.81 *  -0.35%*
Hmean     16      5293.86 (   0.00%)     5267.24 *  -0.50%*
Hmean     32      8464.34 (   0.00%)     9578.40 *  13.16%*
Hmean     64      7417.02 (   0.00%)     7218.91 *  -2.67%*
Hmean     128     6313.71 (   0.00%)     6180.67 *  -2.11%*

Thanks.