linux-kernel - Re: [sched/pelt] 2d02fa8cc2: stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 4 Apr 2022 11:52:51 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ux.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        lkp@...el.com, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        feng.tang@...el.com, zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com,
        fengwei.yin@...el.com, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [sched/pelt] 2d02fa8cc2: stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec -9.7% regression

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 20:32, Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 12:17 AM Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 16:19, Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vincent,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:17 PM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greeting,
> > > >
> > > > FYI, we noticed a -9.7% regression of stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec due to commit:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > commit: 2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf8ab87bf2db651 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync of load_sum with load_avg")
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > > >
> > > > in testcase: stress-ng
> > > > on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz with 128G memory
> > > > with following parameters:
> > > >
> > > >         nr_threads: 100%
> > > >         testtime: 60s
> > > >         class: memory
> > > >         test: pipeherd
> > > >         cpufreq_governor: performance
> > > >         ucode: 0xd000280
> > > >
> > > This week we have re-run the test result and it seems that this
> > > regression is still there.
> > > As we are evaluating whether this report is valid or if the
> > > downgrading is expected, appreciated
> > > if you could give suggestion on further steps:
> > >
> > > 1.  If I understand correctly,
> > > 2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf8ab87bf2db651 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync
> > > of load_sum with load_avg")
> > >      fixed the calculating of  load_sum.  Before this patch  the
> > > contribution part would be 'skipped' and caused the load_sum
> > >      to be lower than expected.
> >
> > Yes, you understand it correctly
> >
> > > 2. If above is true, after this patch, the load_sum becomes higher. Is
> > > there a scenario that higher load_sum added to 1 cfs_rq brings
> > >     more imbalance between this group and other sched_group, thus
> > > brings more task migration/wake up? (because in below perf result,
> > >     it seems that, with this patch applied, there are slightly more
> > > take wake up)
> >
> > This change should not impact load balance as it only does comparison
> > and I expect the load increase to happen on all cfs rq.
> > The only place that could be impacted, would be wake_affine_weight()
> > because it removes task load from previous cfs rq load before
> > comparing.
> > The task's load was not impacted by the underestimate which means that
> > the load of prev cfs  might be seen lower than current cfs after
> > subtracting the task's load whereas both cfs rqs were similarly
> > underestimated.
> > Now the load of prev cfs rq is not underestimated and becomes
> > comparable or slightly higher than the current cfs and the task
> > migrate on current cfs instead of staying on prev one at wakeup
> >
> Could you please elaborate a little more on this scenario, since both current
> and previous cfs rqs were underestimated, how could previous cfs rq has
> lower load than the current one before applying this patch?
>
> Say, suppose the previous cfs rq has a load of L1, and current cfs rq has
> a load of L2, the waken task has a load of h, then wake_affine_weight()
> compares L1 - h  with L2 + h ,  when L1 < L2 + 2h, the task will remain on
> previous CPU.  Since L1 and L2 were underestimated in the same scale,
> I'm not quite sure how this patch would affect the choice between
> prev and current CPU.

Let's take the example of  this_cpu load L1 = 0 and prev_cpu load L2 =
2h'+d. h' reflects h in the cpu load and d is a small delta load. The
task will migrate if we have the condition below:

    h < 2h'-h+d

With this patch, we assume that h' == h as we don't underestimate the
load of cfs rqs anymore. The condition for migrating the task is :
    h < h+d
And the task will migrate on this cpu as soon as there is a small load
on prev_cpu in addition to the 2h.

Without the patch, the load of cfs_rqs are underestimated which means
that the task's load is underestimated in the cfs rq. This can be
described as h'  == h-U. U being the underestimated part. In this case
the condition to migrate the task becomes:
    h < h-2U+d
The task will migrate on this cpu is d is large enough to compensate
the underestimation so we will migrate less often

> > One possible test would be to run the test with WA_WEIGHT features
> > disable and check if there is still a difference
> >
> Yes, after disabling WA_WEIGHT, the performance came back.
> The following score is the output of stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec
>
> WA_WEIGHT                 yes                        no
> -------------------
> patched
>         yes                      58069733.01          69940547.7*
>         no                        64591593.69          73503396.9
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Chenyu