| 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: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 19:54:18 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2][RFC] sched/fair: Change SIS_PROP to search idle CPU
based on sum of util_avg
Hi Prateek,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 05:07:35PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Chenyu,
>
> On 3/10/2022 6:22 AM, Chen Yu wrote:
> > [Problem Statement]
> > Currently select_idle_cpu() uses the percpu average idle time to
> > estimate the total LLC domain idle time, and calculate the number
> > of CPUs to be scanned. This might be inconsistent because idle time
> > of a CPU does not necessarily correlate with idle time of a domain.
> > As a result, the load could be underestimated and causes over searching
> > when the system is very busy.
> >
> > The following histogram is the time spent in select_idle_cpu(),
> > when running 224 instance of netperf on a system with 112 CPUs
> > per LLC domain:
> >
> > @usecs:
> > [0] 533 | |
> > [1] 5495 | |
> > [2, 4) 12008 | |
> > [4, 8) 239252 | |
> > [8, 16) 4041924 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> > [16, 32) 12357398 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> > [32, 64) 14820255 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
> > [64, 128) 13047682 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> > [128, 256) 8235013 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> > [256, 512) 4507667 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
> > [512, 1K) 2600472 |@@@@@@@@@ |
> > [1K, 2K) 927912 |@@@ |
> > [2K, 4K) 218720 | |
> > [4K, 8K) 98161 | |
> > [8K, 16K) 37722 | |
> > [16K, 32K) 6715 | |
> > [32K, 64K) 477 | |
> > [64K, 128K) 7 | |
> >
> > netperf latency:
> > =======
> > case load Lat_99th std%
> > TCP_RR thread-224 257.39 ( 0.21)
> > UDP_RR thread-224 242.83 ( 6.29)
> >
> > The netperf 99th latency(usec) above is comparable with the time spent in
> > select_idle_cpu(). That is to say, when the system is overloaded, searching
> > for idle CPU could be a bottleneck.
> >
> > [Proposal]
> > The main idea is to replace percpu average idle time with the domain
> > based metric. Choose average CPU utilization(util_avg) as the candidate.
> > In general, the number of CPUs to be scanned should be inversely
> > proportional to the sum of util_avg in this domain. That is, the lower
> > the util_avg is, the more select_idle_cpu() should scan for idle CPU,
> > and vice versa. The benefit of choosing util_avg is that, it is a metric
> > of accumulated historic activity, which seems to be more accurate than
> > instantaneous metrics(such as rq->nr_running).
> >
> > Furthermore, borrow the util_avg from periodic load balance,
> > which could offload the overhead of select_idle_cpu().
> >
> > According to last discussion[1], introduced the linear function
> > for experimental purpose:
> >
> > f(x) = a - bx
> >
> > llc_size
> > x = \Sum util_avg[cpu] / llc_cpu_capacity
> > 1
> > f(x) is the number of CPUs to be scanned, x is the sum util_avg.
> > To decide a and b, the following condition should be met:
> >
> > [1] f(0) = llc_size
> > [2] f(x) = 4, x >= 50%
> >
> > That is to say, when the util_avg is 0, we should search for
> > the whole LLC domain. And if util_avg ratio reaches 50% or higher,
> > it should search at most 4 CPUs.
> >
> > Yes, there would be questions like:
> > Why using this linear function to calculate the number of CPUs to
> > be scanned? Why choosing 50% as the threshold? These questions will
> > be discussed in the [Limitations] section.
> >
> > [Benchmark]
> > netperf, hackbench, schbench, tbench
> > were tested with 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% instance
> > of CPU number (these ratios are not CPU utilization). Each test lasts
> > for 100 seconds, and repeats 3 times. The system would reboot into a
> > fresh environment for each benchmark.
> >
> > The following is the benchmark result comparison between
> > baseline:vanilla and compare:patched kernel. Positive compare%
> > indicates better performance.
> >
> > netperf
> > =======
> > case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
> > TCP_RR 28 threads 1.00 ( 0.30) -1.26 ( 0.32)
> > TCP_RR 56 threads 1.00 ( 0.35) -1.26 ( 0.41)
> > TCP_RR 84 threads 1.00 ( 0.46) -0.15 ( 0.60)
> > TCP_RR 112 threads 1.00 ( 0.36) +0.44 ( 0.41)
> > TCP_RR 140 threads 1.00 ( 0.23) +0.95 ( 0.21)
> > TCP_RR 168 threads 1.00 ( 0.20) +177.77 ( 3.78)
> > TCP_RR 196 threads 1.00 ( 0.18) +185.43 ( 10.08)
> > TCP_RR 224 threads 1.00 ( 0.16) +187.86 ( 7.32)
> > UDP_RR 28 threads 1.00 ( 0.43) -0.93 ( 0.27)
> > UDP_RR 56 threads 1.00 ( 0.17) -0.39 ( 10.91)
> > UDP_RR 84 threads 1.00 ( 6.36) +1.03 ( 0.92)
> > UDP_RR 112 threads 1.00 ( 5.55) +1.47 ( 17.67)
> > UDP_RR 140 threads 1.00 ( 18.17) +0.31 ( 15.48)
> > UDP_RR 168 threads 1.00 ( 15.00) +153.87 ( 13.20)
> > UDP_RR 196 threads 1.00 ( 16.26) +169.19 ( 13.78)
> > UDP_RR 224 threads 1.00 ( 51.81) +76.72 ( 10.95)
> >
> > hackbench
> > =========
> > (each group has 1/4 * 112 tasks)
> > case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
> > process-pipe 1 group 1.00 ( 0.47) -0.46 ( 0.16)
> > process-pipe 2 groups 1.00 ( 0.42) -0.61 ( 0.74)
> > process-pipe 3 groups 1.00 ( 0.42) +0.38 ( 0.20)
> > process-pipe 4 groups 1.00 ( 0.15) -0.36 ( 0.56)
> > process-pipe 5 groups 1.00 ( 0.20) -5.08 ( 0.01)
> > process-pipe 6 groups 1.00 ( 0.28) -2.98 ( 0.29)
> > process-pipe 7 groups 1.00 ( 0.08) -1.18 ( 0.28)
> > process-pipe 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.11) -0.40 ( 0.07)
> > process-sockets 1 group 1.00 ( 0.43) -1.93 ( 0.58)
> > process-sockets 2 groups 1.00 ( 0.23) -1.10 ( 0.49)
> > process-sockets 3 groups 1.00 ( 1.10) -0.96 ( 1.12)
> > process-sockets 4 groups 1.00 ( 0.59) -0.08 ( 0.88)
> > process-sockets 5 groups 1.00 ( 0.45) +0.31 ( 0.34)
> > process-sockets 6 groups 1.00 ( 0.23) +0.06 ( 0.66)
> > process-sockets 7 groups 1.00 ( 0.12) +1.72 ( 0.20)
> > process-sockets 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.11) +1.98 ( 0.02)
> > threads-pipe 1 group 1.00 ( 1.07) +0.03 ( 0.40)
> > threads-pipe 2 groups 1.00 ( 1.05) +0.19 ( 1.27)
> > threads-pipe 3 groups 1.00 ( 0.32) -0.42 ( 0.48)
> > threads-pipe 4 groups 1.00 ( 0.42) -0.76 ( 0.79)
> > threads-pipe 5 groups 1.00 ( 0.19) -4.97 ( 0.07)
> > threads-pipe 6 groups 1.00 ( 0.05) -4.11 ( 0.04)
> > threads-pipe 7 groups 1.00 ( 0.10) -1.13 ( 0.16)
> > threads-pipe 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.03) -0.08 ( 0.05)
> > threads-sockets 1 group 1.00 ( 0.33) -1.93 ( 0.69)
> > threads-sockets 2 groups 1.00 ( 0.20) -1.55 ( 0.30)
> > threads-sockets 3 groups 1.00 ( 0.37) -1.29 ( 0.59)
> > threads-sockets 4 groups 1.00 ( 1.83) +0.31 ( 1.17)
> > threads-sockets 5 groups 1.00 ( 0.28) +15.73 ( 0.24)
> > threads-sockets 6 groups 1.00 ( 0.15) +5.02 ( 0.34)
> > threads-sockets 7 groups 1.00 ( 0.10) +2.29 ( 0.14)
> > threads-sockets 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.17) +2.22 ( 0.12)
> >
> > tbench
> > ======
> > case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
> > loopback 28 threads 1.00 ( 0.05) -1.39 ( 0.04)
> > loopback 56 threads 1.00 ( 0.08) -0.37 ( 0.04)
> > loopback 84 threads 1.00 ( 0.03) +0.20 ( 0.13)
> > loopback 112 threads 1.00 ( 0.04) +0.69 ( 0.04)
> > loopback 140 threads 1.00 ( 0.13) +1.15 ( 0.21)
> > loopback 168 threads 1.00 ( 0.03) +1.62 ( 0.08)
> > loopback 196 threads 1.00 ( 0.08) +1.50 ( 0.30)
> > loopback 224 threads 1.00 ( 0.05) +1.62 ( 0.05)
> >
> > schbench
> > ========
> > (each mthread group has 1/4 * 112 tasks)
> > case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
> > normal 1 mthread group 1.00 ( 17.92) +19.23 ( 23.67)
> > normal 2 mthread groups 1.00 ( 21.10) +8.32 ( 16.92)
> > normal 3 mthread groups 1.00 ( 10.80) +10.03 ( 9.21)
> > normal 4 mthread groups 1.00 ( 2.67) +0.11 ( 3.00)
> > normal 5 mthread groups 1.00 ( 0.08) +0.00 ( 0.13)
> > normal 6 mthread groups 1.00 ( 2.99) -2.66 ( 3.87)
> > normal 7 mthread groups 1.00 ( 2.16) -0.83 ( 2.24)
> > normal 8 mthread groups 1.00 ( 1.75) +0.18 ( 3.18)
> Following are the results on benchmarks from Zen3 system (2 x 64C/128T)
> on different NPS modes.
>
Thanks for the testing.
> NPS Configurations:
>
> NPS Modes are used to logically divide single socket into
> multiple NUMA region.
> Following is the NUMA configuration for each NPS mode on the system:
>
> NPS1: Each socket is a NUMA node.
> Total 2 NUMA nodes in the dual socket machine.
>
> Node 0: 0-63, 128-191
> Node 1: 64-127, 192-255
>
> NPS2: Each socket is further logically divided into 2 NUMA regions.
> Total 4 NUMA nodes exist over 2 socket.
>
> Node 0: 0-31, 128-159
> Node 1: 32-63, 160-191
> Node 2: 64-95, 192-223
> Node 3: 96-127, 223-255
>
> NPS4: Each socket is logically divided into 4 NUMA regions.
> Total 8 NUMA nodes exist over 2 socket.
>
> Node 0: 0-15, 128-143
> Node 1: 16-31, 144-159
> Node 2: 32-47, 160-175
> Node 3: 48-63, 176-191
> Node 4: 64-79, 192-207
> Node 5: 80-95, 208-223
> Node 6: 96-111, 223-231
> Node 7: 112-127, 232-255
>
> Benchmark Results:
>
> Kernel versions:
> - sched-tip: 5.17-rc5 tip sched/core
> - v2_sis_prop: 5.17-rc5 tip sched/core + this patch
>
Just wonder what the kernel version was when you tested v1?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4ca9ba48-20f0-84d5-6a38-11f9d4c7a028@amd.com/
It seems that there is slight performance difference between the old baseline
and current 5.17-rc5 tip sched/core.
> ~~~~~~~~~
> hackbench
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> NPS1
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1-groups: 5.05 (0.00 pct) 5.00 (0.99 pct)
> 2-groups: 5.72 (0.00 pct) 5.63 (1.57 pct)
> 4-groups: 6.34 (0.00 pct) 6.21 (2.05 pct)
> 8-groups: 7.89 (0.00 pct) 7.80 (1.14 pct)
> 16-groups: 11.80 (0.00 pct) 11.62 (1.52 pct)
>
> NPS2
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1-groups: 4.94 (0.00 pct) 4.93 (0.20 pct)
> 2-groups: 5.64 (0.00 pct) 5.55 (1.59 pct)
> 4-groups: 6.23 (0.00 pct) 6.07 (2.56 pct)
> 8-groups: 7.70 (0.00 pct) 7.46 (3.11 pct)
> 16-groups: 10.49 (0.00 pct) 10.12 (3.52 pct)
>
> NPS4
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1-groups: 4.89 (0.00 pct) 4.97 (-1.63 pct)
> 2-groups: 5.43 (0.00 pct) 5.48 (-0.92 pct)
> 4-groups: 6.15 (0.00 pct) 6.21 (-0.97 pct)
> 8-groups: 7.54 (0.00 pct) 8.07 (-7.02 pct)
> 16-groups: 10.20 (0.00 pct) 10.13 ( 0.68 pct)
>
> ~~~~~~~~
> schbench
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> NPS 1
>
> #workers: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1: 13.00 (0.00 pct) 14.50 (-11.53 pct)
> 2: 31.50 (0.00 pct) 35.00 (-11.11 pct)
It seems that in the old result:
NPS Mode - NPS1
#workers: sched-tip util-avg
1: 13.00 (0.00 pct) 14.50 (-11.53 pct)
2: 31.50 (0.00 pct) 34.00 (-7.93 pct)
we still saw some downgradings. Although in the v1 patch,
there is no logic change when the utilization is below 85%.
I'm thinking of this might be deviation when the load is low.
For example in v2 test of schbench, 3 cycles of testings were
launched:
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
normal 1 mthread group 1.00 ( 17.92) +19.23 ( 23.67)
The standard deviation ratio is 23%, which seams to be relatively
large. But consider that v2 patch has changed the logic of how aggressive
we searching for a idle CPU, even in low utilization, this result
needs to be evaluated.
> 4: 43.00 (0.00 pct) 44.50 (-3.48 pct)
> 8: 52.50 (0.00 pct) 52.00 (0.95 pct)
> 16: 69.00 (0.00 pct) 68.00 (1.44 pct)
> 32: 108.50 (0.00 pct) 108.50 (0.00 pct)
> 64: 195.00 (0.00 pct) 192.50 (1.28 pct)
> 128: 395.50 (0.00 pct) 399.00 (-0.88 pct)
> 256: 950.00 (0.00 pct) 944.00 (0.63 pct)
> 512: 60352.00 (0.00 pct) 60608.00 (-0.42 pct)
>
> NPS2
>
> #workers: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1: 10.00 (0.00 pct) 10.00 (0.00 pct)
> 2: 25.00 (0.00 pct) 28.00 (-12.00 pct)
> 4: 37.00 (0.00 pct) 37.50 (-1.35 pct)
> 8: 50.50 (0.00 pct) 52.50 (-3.96 pct)
> 16: 65.50 (0.00 pct) 67.50 (-3.05 pct)
> 32: 104.00 (0.00 pct) 104.50 (-0.48 pct)
> 64: 190.00 (0.00 pct) 186.50 (1.84 pct)
> 128: 394.50 (0.00 pct) 398.50 (-1.01 pct)
> 256: 959.00 (0.00 pct) 979.00 (-2.08 pct)
> 512: 60352.00 (0.00 pct) 60480.00 (-0.21 pct)
>
> NPS4
>
> #workers: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1: 9.50 (0.00 pct) 10.00 (-5.26 pct)
> 2: 28.00 (0.00 pct) 30.00 (-7.14 pct)
> 4: 32.00 (0.00 pct) 36.50 (-14.06 pct)
> 8: 42.00 (0.00 pct) 43.00 (-2.38 pct)
> 16: 68.00 (0.00 pct) 75.50 (-11.02 pct)
> 32: 104.50 (0.00 pct) 106.50 (-1.91 pct)
> 64: 186.00 (0.00 pct) 191.50 (-2.95 pct)
> 128: 382.50 (0.00 pct) 392.50 (-2.61 pct)
> 256: 966.00 (0.00 pct) 963.00 (0.31 pct)
> 512: 60480.00 (0.00 pct) 60416.00 (0.10 pct)
>
> ~~~~~~
> tbench
> ~~~~~~
>
> NPS 1
>
> Clients: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1 477.85 (0.00 pct) 470.68 (-1.50 pct)
> 2 924.07 (0.00 pct) 910.82 (-1.43 pct)
> 4 1778.95 (0.00 pct) 1743.64 (-1.98 pct)
> 8 3244.81 (0.00 pct) 3200.35 (-1.37 pct)
> 16 5837.06 (0.00 pct) 5808.36 (-0.49 pct)
> 32 9339.33 (0.00 pct) 8648.03 (-7.40 pct)
> 64 14761.19 (0.00 pct) 15803.13 (7.05 pct)
> 128 27806.11 (0.00 pct) 27510.69 (-1.06 pct)
> 256 35262.03 (0.00 pct) 34135.78 (-3.19 pct)
The result from v1 patch:
NPS Mode - NPS1
Clients: sched-tip util-avg
256 26726.29 (0.00 pct) 52502.83 (96.44 pct)
> 512 52459.78 (0.00 pct) 51630.53 (-1.58 pct)
> 1024 52480.67 (0.00 pct) 52439.37 (-0.07 pct)
>
> NPS 2
>
> Clients: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1 478.98 (0.00 pct) 472.98 (-1.25 pct)
> 2 930.52 (0.00 pct) 914.48 (-1.72 pct)
> 4 1743.26 (0.00 pct) 1711.16 (-1.84 pct)
> 8 3297.07 (0.00 pct) 3161.12 (-4.12 pct)
> 16 5779.10 (0.00 pct) 5738.38 (-0.70 pct)
> 32 10708.42 (0.00 pct) 10748.26 (0.37 pct)
> 64 16965.21 (0.00 pct) 16894.42 (-0.41 pct)
> 128 29152.49 (0.00 pct) 28287.31 (-2.96 pct)
> 256 27408.75 (0.00 pct) 33680.59 (22.88 pct)
The result from v1 patch:
256 27654.49 (0.00 pct) 47126.18 (70.41 pct)
> 512 51453.64 (0.00 pct) 47546.87 (-7.59 pct)
> 1024 52156.85 (0.00 pct) 51233.28 (-1.77 pct)
>
> NPS 4
>
> Clients: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 1 480.29 (0.00 pct) 473.75 (-1.36 pct)
> 2 940.23 (0.00 pct) 915.60 (-2.61 pct)
> 4 1760.21 (0.00 pct) 1687.99 (-4.10 pct)
> 8 3269.75 (0.00 pct) 3154.02 (-3.53 pct)
> 16 5503.71 (0.00 pct) 5485.01 (-0.33 pct)
> 32 10633.93 (0.00 pct) 10276.21 (-3.36 pct)
> 64 16304.44 (0.00 pct) 15351.17 (-5.84 pct)
> 128 26893.95 (0.00 pct) 25337.08 (-5.78 pct)
> 256 24469.94 (0.00 pct) 32178.33 (31.50 pct)
The result from v1 patch:
256 25997.38 (0.00 pct) 47735.83 (83.61 pct)
In above three cases, v2 has smaller improvement compared to
v1. In both v1 and v2, the improvement mainly comes from choosing
previous running CPU as the target, when the system is busy. But
v2 is more likely to choose a previous CPU than v1, because its
threshold 50% is lower than 85% from v2. Then why v2 has less improvement
than v1? It seems that v2 patch only changes the logic of SIS_PRO for
single idle CPU searching, but not touches the idle Core searching.
Meanwhile v1 limits both idle CPU and idle Core searching, and this
might explain the extra benefit from v1 patch IMO.
> 512 46343.65 (0.00 pct) 49607.28 (7.04 pct)
> 1024 51496.80 (0.00 pct) 51791.27 (0.57 pct)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stream with 16 threads.
> built with -DSTREAM_ARRAY_SIZE=128000000, -DNTIMES=10
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> NPS1
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> Copy: 204020.95 (0.00 pct) 211802.20 (3.81 pct)
> Scale: 208261.03 (0.00 pct) 210809.40 (1.22 pct)
> Add: 243944.45 (0.00 pct) 249801.81 (2.40 pct)
> Triad: 237033.90 (0.00 pct) 242273.45 (2.21 pct)
>
> NPS2
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> Copy: 171679.21 (0.00 pct) 153853.24 (-10.38 pct)
> Scale: 191362.43 (0.00 pct) 188219.32 (-1.64 pct)
> Add: 218986.47 (0.00 pct) 204766.66 (-6.49 pct)
> Triad: 215118.01 (0.00 pct) 202370.69 (-5.92 pct)
>
> NPS4
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> Copy: 133829.00 (0.00 pct) 125722.97 (-6.05 pct)
> Scale: 192074.89 (0.00 pct) 187164.95 (-2.55 pct)
> Add: 186288.73 (0.00 pct) 175316.23 (-5.89 pct)
> Triad: 185469.53 (0.00 pct) 175985.74 (-5.11 pct)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stream with 16 threads.
> built with -DSTREAM_ARRAY_SIZE=128000000, -DNTIMES=100
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> NPS1
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> Copy: 217592.30 (0.00 pct) 231684.51 (6.47 pct)
> Scale: 217269.78 (0.00 pct) 218632.93 (0.62 pct)
> Add: 265842.95 (0.00 pct) 266692.50 (0.31 pct)
> Triad: 252647.10 (0.00 pct) 253462.69 (0.32 pct)
>
> NPS2
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> Copy: 226948.55 (0.00 pct) 242576.78 (6.88 pct)
> Scale: 217968.87 (0.00 pct) 220613.96 (1.21 pct)
> Add: 274839.22 (0.00 pct) 277389.36 (0.92 pct)
> Triad: 261920.73 (0.00 pct) 263849.95 (0.73 pct)
>
> NPS4
>
> Test: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> Copy: 256162.84 (0.00 pct) 238881.35 (-6.74 pct)
> Scale: 228251.12 (0.00 pct) 228669.16 (0.18 pct)
> Add: 292794.77 (0.00 pct) 293700.42 (0.30 pct)
> Triad: 274152.69 (0.00 pct) 274900.77 (0.27 pct)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ycsb-mongodb
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> NPS1
>
> sched-tip: 304934.67 (var: 0.88)
> v2_sis_prop: 301560.0 (var: 2.0) (-1.1%)
>
> NPS2
>
> sched-tip: 303757.0 (var: 1.0)
> v2_sis_prop: 302283.0 (var: 0.58) (-0.48%)
>
> NPS4
>
> sched-tip: 308106.67 (var: 2.88)
> v2_sis_prop: 302302.67 (var: 1.12) (-1.88%)
>
May I know the average CPU utilization of this benchmark?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> schbench, tbench - System 50% loaded to fully loaded
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~
> schbench
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> NPS1
>
> #workers: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 128: 395.50 (0.00 pct) 399.00 (-0.88 pct)
> 144: 441.50 (0.00 pct) 450.00 (-1.92 pct)
> 160: 488.00 (0.00 pct) 513.00 (-5.12 pct)
> 176: 549.00 (0.00 pct) 547.00 (0.36 pct)
> 192: 601.00 (0.00 pct) 589.00 (1.99 pct)
> 208: 653.00 (0.00 pct) 736.00 (-12.71 pct)
> 224: 740.00 (0.00 pct) 757.00 (-2.29 pct)
> 240: 835.00 (0.00 pct) 808.00 (3.23 pct)
> 256: 950.00 (0.00 pct) 944.00 (0.63 pct)
>
> NPS2:
> #workers: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 128: 394.50 (0.00 pct) 398.50 (-1.01 pct)
> 144: 454.50 (0.00 pct) 443.50 (2.42 pct)
> 160: 500.00 (0.00 pct) 494.00 (1.20 pct)
> 176: 547.00 (0.00 pct) 530.00 (3.10 pct)
> 192: 595.00 (0.00 pct) 609.00 (-2.35 pct)
> 208: 739.00 (0.00 pct) 738.00 (0.13 pct)
> 224: 781.00 (0.00 pct) 794.00 (-1.66 pct)
> 240: 894.00 (0.00 pct) 890.00 (0.44 pct)
> 256: 959.00 (0.00 pct) 979.00 (-2.08 pct)
>
> NPS4
>
> #workers: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 128: 382.50 (0.00 pct) 392.50 (-2.61 pct)
> 144: 451.50 (0.00 pct) 459.00 (-1.66 pct)
> 160: 491.00 (0.00 pct) 497.00 (-1.22 pct)
> 176: 578.00 (0.00 pct) 564.00 (2.42 pct)
> 192: 593.00 (0.00 pct) 612.00 (-3.20 pct)
> 208: 737.00 (0.00 pct) 720.00 (2.30 pct)
> 224: 786.00 (0.00 pct) 796.00 (-1.27 pct)
> 240: 893.00 (0.00 pct) 890.00 (0.33 pct)
> 256: 966.00 (0.00 pct) 963.00 (0.31 pct)
>
> ~~~~~~
> tbench
> ~~~~~~
>
> NPS1
>
> Clients: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 128 28369.07 (0.00 pct) 25649.26 (-9.58 pct)
> 144 25794.95 (0.00 pct) 25464.33 (-1.28 pct)
> 160 23905.48 (0.00 pct) 23507.18 (-1.66 pct)
> 176 24219.13 (0.00 pct) 22664.99 (-6.41 pct)
> 192 23978.71 (0.00 pct) 22506.50 (-6.13 pct)
> 208 24045.91 (0.00 pct) 22592.62 (-6.04 pct)
> 224 21961.21 (0.00 pct) 22154.28 (0.87 pct)
> 240 22001.05 (0.00 pct) 26245.06 (19.29 pct)
> 256 26866.60 (0.00 pct) 33064.10 (23.06 pct)
>
> NPS2
>
> Clients: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 128 25229.75 (0.00 pct) 26396.32 (4.62 pct)
> 144 27488.16 (0.00 pct) 24596.76 (-10.51 pct)
> 160 23765.03 (0.00 pct) 23945.55 (0.75 pct)
> 176 22230.05 (0.00 pct) 22207.84 (-0.09 pct)
> 192 21383.39 (0.00 pct) 22385.72 (4.68 pct)
> 208 23920.96 (0.00 pct) 22323.24 (-6.67 pct)
> 224 22212.38 (0.00 pct) 24108.90 (8.53 pct)
> 240 22143.36 (0.00 pct) 25655.54 (15.86 pct)
> 256 29923.16 (0.00 pct) 32570.60 (8.84 pct)
>
> NPS4
>
> Clients: sched-tip v2_sis_prop
> 128 26336.35 (0.00 pct) 24604.90 (-6.57 pct)
> 144 24469.64 (0.00 pct) 24685.57 (0.88 pct)
> 160 23742.98 (0.00 pct) 23381.86 (-1.52 pct)
> 176 22512.46 (0.00 pct) 22602.49 (0.39 pct)
> 192 21141.71 (0.00 pct) 22752.25 (7.61 pct)
> 208 21803.07 (0.00 pct) 22280.24 (2.18 pct)
> 224 21174.10 (0.00 pct) 23582.49 (11.37 pct)
> 240 21510.36 (0.00 pct) 26295.92 (22.24 pct)
> 256 25170.50 (0.00 pct) 34215.08 (35.93 pct)
>
> Hackbench shows improvements in NPS1 and NPS2 modes. tbench sees good
> improvement when system is close to fully loaded. Stream values are very
> close to the baseline. YCSB MongoDB shows slight regression and schbench
> is a mixed bag.
>
> This strategy would probably work better on systems with large number of
> CPUs per LLC but from our observations, I believe it is worthwhile to
> search for an idle CPUs in the entire LLC on Zen3 systems as we have
> 16 CPUs per LLC.
> Only when the system is close to fully loaded, we see a good uplift by not
> searching the entire LLC in tbench which is what we saw with the v1 too.
I see. But we might have to make this per-LLC search generic, both for smaller
size and bigger size. Current using exponential descent function could increase the
number of CPUs to be searched when the system is not busy. I'll think about it
and do some investigation.
thanks,
Chenyu
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists