| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6e480001-ecd6-1ce5-f95f-8eff42587c78@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 11:41:00 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com, efault@....de, gautham.shenoy@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
mingo@...nel.org, song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com,
srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, valentin.schneider@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] sched/fair: Consider cpu affinity when allowing NUMA
imbalance in find_idlest_group
Ping :)
On 4/7/2022 4:42 PM, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> In the case of systems containing multiple LLCs per socket, like
> AMD Zen systems, users want to spread bandwidth hungry applications
> across multiple LLCs. Stream is one such representative workload where
> the best performance is obtained by limiting one stream thread per LLC.
> To ensure this, users are known to pin the tasks to a specify a subset
> of the CPUs consisting of one CPU per LLC while running such bandwidth
> hungry tasks.
>
> Suppose we kickstart a multi-threaded task like stream with 8 threads
> using taskset or numactl to run on a subset of CPUs on a 2 socket Zen3
> server where each socket contains 128 CPUs
> (0-63,128-191 in one socket, 64-127,192-255 in another socket)
>
> Eg: numactl -C 0,16,32,48,64,80,96,112 ./stream8
>
> Here each CPU in the list is from a different LLC and 4 of those LLCs
> are on one socket, while the other 4 are on another socket.
>
> Ideally we would prefer that each stream thread runs on a different
> CPU from the allowed list of CPUs. However, the current heuristics in
> find_idlest_group() do not allow this during the initial placement.
>
> Suppose the first socket (0-63,128-191) is our local group from which
> we are kickstarting the stream tasks. The first four stream threads
> will be placed in this socket. When it comes to placing the 5th
> thread, all the allowed CPUs are from the local group (0,16,32,48)
> would have been taken.
>
> However, the current scheduler code simply checks if the number of
> tasks in the local group is fewer than the allowed numa-imbalance
> threshold. This threshold was previously 25% of the NUMA domain span
> (in this case threshold = 32) but after the v6 of Mel's patchset
> "Adjust NUMA imbalance for multiple LLCs", got merged in sched-tip,
> Commit: e496132ebedd ("sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance
> when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs") it is now equal to number of LLCs
> in the NUMA domain, for processors with multiple LLCs.
> (in this case threshold = 8).
>
> For this example, the number of tasks will always be within threshold
> and thus all the 8 stream threads will be woken up on the first socket
> thereby resulting in sub-optimal performance.
>
> The following sched_wakeup_new tracepoint output shows the initial
> placement of tasks in the current tip/sched/core on the Zen3 machine:
>
> stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005036: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5315 prio=120 target_cpu=032
> stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005086: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5316 prio=120 target_cpu=048
> stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005141: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5317 prio=120 target_cpu=000
> stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005183: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5318 prio=120 target_cpu=016
> stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005218: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5319 prio=120 target_cpu=016
> stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005256: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5320 prio=120 target_cpu=016
> stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005295: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5321 prio=120 target_cpu=016
>
> Once the first four threads are distributed among the allowed CPUs of
> socket one, the rest of the treads start piling on these same CPUs
> when clearly there are CPUs on the second socket that can be used.
>
> Following the initial pile up on a small number of CPUs, though the
> load-balancer eventually kicks in, it takes a while to get to {4}{4}
> and even {4}{4} isn't stable as we observe a bunch of ping ponging
> between {4}{4} to {5}{3} and back before a stable state is reached
> much later (1 Stream thread per allowed CPU) and no more migration is
> required.
>
> We can detect this piling and avoid it by checking if the number of
> allowed CPUs in the local group are fewer than the number of tasks
> running in the local group and use this information to spread the
> 5th task out into the next socket (after all, the goal in this
> slowpath is to find the idlest group and the idlest CPU during the
> initial placement!).
>
> The following sched_wakeup_new tracepoint output shows the initial
> placement of tasks after adding this fix on the Zen3 machine:
>
> stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784046: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4487 prio=120 target_cpu=032
> stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784123: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4488 prio=120 target_cpu=048
> stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784167: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4489 prio=120 target_cpu=000
> stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784222: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4490 prio=120 target_cpu=112
> stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784271: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4491 prio=120 target_cpu=096
> stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784322: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4492 prio=120 target_cpu=080
> stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784368: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4493 prio=120 target_cpu=064
>
> We see that threads are using all of the allowed CPUs and there is
> no pileup.
>
> No output is generated for tracepoint sched_migrate_task with this
> patch due to a perfect initial placement which removes the need
> for balancing later on - both across NUMA boundaries and within
> NUMA boundaries for stream.
>
> Following are the results from running 8 Stream threads with and
> without pinning on a dual socket Zen3 Machine (2 x 64C/128T):
>
> During the testing of this patch, the tip sched/core was at
> commit: 089c02ae2771 "ftrace: Use preemption model accessors for trace
> header printout"
>
> Pinning is done using: numactl -C 0,16,32,48,64,80,96,112 ./stream8
>
> 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1
> tip sched/core tip sched/core tip sched/core
> (no pinning) + pinning + this-patch
> + pinning
>
> Copy: 109364.74 (0.00 pct) 94220.50 (-13.84 pct) 158301.28 (44.74 pct)
> Scale: 109670.26 (0.00 pct) 90210.59 (-17.74 pct) 149525.64 (36.34 pct)
> Add: 129029.01 (0.00 pct) 101906.00 (-21.02 pct) 186658.17 (44.66 pct)
> Triad: 127260.05 (0.00 pct) 106051.36 (-16.66 pct) 184327.30 (44.84 pct)
>
> Pinning currently hurts the performance compared to unbound case on
> tip/sched/core. With the addition of this patch, we are able to
> outperform tip/sched/core by a good margin with pinning.
>
> Following are the results from running 16 Stream threads with and
> without pinning on a dual socket IceLake Machine (2 x 32C/64T):
>
> NUMA Topology of Intel Skylake machine:
> Node 1: 0,2,4,6 ... 126 (Even numbers)
> Node 2: 1,3,5,7 ... 127 (Odd numbers)
>
> Pinning is done using: numactl -C 0-15 ./stream16
>
> 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1
> tip sched/core tip sched/core tip sched/core
> (no pinning) +pinning + this-patch
> + pinning
>
> Copy: 85815.31 (0.00 pct) 149819.21 (74.58 pct) 156807.48 (82.72 pct)
> Scale: 64795.60 (0.00 pct) 97595.07 (50.61 pct) 99871.96 (54.13 pct)
> Add: 71340.68 (0.00 pct) 111549.10 (56.36 pct) 114598.33 (60.63 pct)
> Triad: 68890.97 (0.00 pct) 111635.16 (62.04 pct) 114589.24 (66.33 pct)
>
> In case of Icelake machine, with single LLC per socket, pinning across
> the two sockets reduces cache contention, thus showing great
> improvement in pinned case which is further benefited by this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> Changelog v6-->v7:
> - Rebased the changes on the latest sched-tip.
> - Updated commit log with numbers comparing patch with the latest
> sched-tip on AMD Zen3 and Intel Icelake based server offerings.
> - Collected tags from v6.
> Changelog v5-->v6:
> - Move the cpumask variable declaration to the block it is used in.
> - Collect tags from v5.
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index d4bd299d67ab..520593bf0de6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9215,6 +9215,7 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>
> case group_has_spare:
> if (sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> + int imb;
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
> int idlest_cpu;
> /*
> @@ -9232,10 +9233,19 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> * Otherwise, keep the task close to the wakeup source
> * and improve locality if the number of running tasks
> * would remain below threshold where an imbalance is
> - * allowed. If there is a real need of migration,
> - * periodic load balance will take care of it.
> + * allowed while accounting for the possibility the
> + * task is pinned to a subset of CPUs. If there is a
> + * real need of migration, periodic load balance will
> + * take care of it.
> */
> - if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, sd->imb_numa_nr))
> + imb = sd->imb_numa_nr;
> + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed != num_online_cpus()) {
> + struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask);
> +
> + cpumask_and(cpus, sched_group_span(local), p->cpus_ptr);
> + imb = min(cpumask_weight(cpus), sd->imb_numa_nr);
> + }
> + if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, imb))
> return NULL;
> }
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists