Message-ID: <20220711120251.GA7733@chenyu5-mobl1>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 20:02:51 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] sched/fair: skip busy cores in SIS search

On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 11:56:19PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> 
> On 7/9/22 4:55 PM, Chen Yu Wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 06:46:08PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 6/30/22 12:16 PM, Chen Yu Wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:58:55PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 6/27/22 6:13 PM, Abel Wu Wrote:
> > > > > There seems like not much difference except hackbench pipe test at
> > > > > certain groups (30~110).
> > > > OK, smaller LLC domain seems to not have much difference, which might
> > > > suggest that by leveraging load balance code path, the read/write
> > > > to LLC shared mask might not be the bottleneck. I have an vague
> > > > impression that during Aubrey's cpumask searching for idle CPUs
> > > > work[1], there is concern that updating the shared mask in large LLC
> > > > has introduced cache contention and performance degrading. Maybe we
> > > > can find that regressed test case to verify.
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1615872606-56087-1-git-send-email-aubrey.li@intel.com/
> > > 
> > > I just went through Aubrey's v1-v11 patches and didn't find any
> > > particular tests other than hackbench/tbench/uperf. Please let
> > > me know if I missed something, thanks!
> > > 
> > I haven't found any testcase that could trigger the cache contention
> > issue. I thought we could stick with these testcases for now, especially
> > for tbench, it has detected a cache issue described in
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e000b124-afd4-28e1-fde2-393b0e38ce19@amd.com
> > if I understand correctly.
> 
> I Agree.
> 
> > > > > I am intended to provide better scalability
> > > > > by applying the filter which will be enabled when:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     - The LLC is large enough that simply traversing becomes
> > > > >       in-sufficient, and/or
> > > > > 
> > > > >     - The LLC is loaded that unoccupied cpus are minority.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But it would be very nice if a more fine grained pattern works well
> > > > > so we can drop the above constrains.
> > > > > 
> > > > We can first try to push a simple version, and later optimize it.
> > > > One concern about v4 is that, we changed the logic in v3, which recorded
> > > > the overloaded CPU, while v4 tracks unoccupied CPUs. An overloaded CPU is
> > > > more "stable" because there are more than 1 running tasks on that runqueue.
> > > > It is more likely to remain "occupied" for a while. That is to say,
> > > > nr_task = 1, 2, 3... will all be regarded as occupied, while only nr_task = 0
> > > > is unoccupied. The former would bring less false negative/positive.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I like the 'overloaded mask' too, but the downside is extra
> > > cpumask ops needed in the SIS path (the added cpumask_andnot).
> > > Besides, in this patch, the 'overloaded mask' is also unstable due
> > > to the state is maintained at core level rather than per-cpu, some
> > > more thoughts are in cover letter.
> > > 
> > I see.
> > > > 
> > > > By far I have tested hackbench/schbench/netperf on top of Peter's sched/core branch,
> > > > with SIS_UTIL enabled. Overall it looks good, and netperf has especially
> > > > significant improvement when the load approaches overloaded(which is aligned
> > > > with your comment above). I'll re-run the netperf for several cycles to check the
> > > > standard deviation. And I'm also curious about v3's performance because it
> > > > tracks overloaded CPUs, so I'll also test on v3 with small modifications.
> > > 
> > > Thanks very much for your reviewing and testing.
> > > 
> > I modified your v3 patch a little bit, and the test result shows good improvement
> > on netperf and no significant regression on schbench/tbench/hackbench on this draft
> 
> I don't know why there is such a big improvement in netperf TCP_RR
> 168-threads while results under other configs are plain.
>
Here is my thought: in previous testing for SIS_UTIL on the same platform, netperf
prefers to run on the previous CPU rather than a new idle one. It brings improvement
for 224-threads when SIS_UTIL is enabled, because SIS_UTIL terminates the scan
earlier in this case. And current v3 patch terminates the scan in 168-threads
case(which does not in SIS_UTIL), so it get further improvement.
> > patch. I would like to vote for your v3 version as it seems to be more straightforward,
> > what do you think of the following change:
> > 
> >  From 277b60b7cd055d5be93188a552da50fdfe53214c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
> > Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 02:16:47 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Introduce SIS_FILTER to skip overloaded CPUs
> >   during SIS
> > 
> > Currently SIS_UTIL is used to limit the scan depth of idle CPUs in
> > select_idle_cpu(). There could be another optimization to filter
> > the overloaded CPUs so as to further speed up select_idle_cpu().
> > Launch the CPU overload check in periodic tick, and take consideration
> > of nr_running, avg_util and runnable_avg of that CPU. If the CPU is
> > overloaded, add it into per LLC overload cpumask, so select_idle_cpu()
> > could skip those overloaded CPUs. Although this detection is in periodic
> > tick, checking the pelt signal of the CPU would make the 'overloaded' state
> > more stable and reduce the frequency to update the LLC shared mask,
> > so as to mitigate the cache contention in the LLC.
> > 
> > The following results are tested on top of latest sched/core tip.
> > The baseline is with SIS_UTIL enabled, and compared it with both SIS_FILTER
> > /SIS_UTIL enabled. Positive %compare stands for better performance.
> 
> Can you share the cpu topology please?
> 
It is a 2-sockets system, with 112 CPUs in each LLC domain/socket.
> > 
> > hackbench
> > =========
> > case            	load    	baseline(std%)	compare%( std%)
> > process-pipe    	1 group 	 1.00 (  0.59)	 -1.35 (  0.88)
> > process-pipe    	2 groups 	 1.00 (  0.38)	 -1.49 (  0.04)
> > process-pipe    	4 groups 	 1.00 (  0.45)	 +0.10 (  0.91)
> > process-pipe    	8 groups 	 1.00 (  0.11)	 +0.03 (  0.38)
> > process-sockets 	1 group 	 1.00 (  3.48)	 +2.88 (  7.07)
> > process-sockets 	2 groups 	 1.00 (  2.38)	 -3.78 (  2.81)
> > process-sockets 	4 groups 	 1.00 (  0.26)	 -1.79 (  0.82)
> > process-sockets 	8 groups 	 1.00 (  0.07)	 -0.35 (  0.07)
> > threads-pipe    	1 group 	 1.00 (  0.87)	 -0.21 (  0.71)
> > threads-pipe    	2 groups 	 1.00 (  0.63)	 +0.34 (  0.45)
> > threads-pipe    	4 groups 	 1.00 (  0.18)	 -0.02 (  0.50)
> > threads-pipe    	8 groups 	 1.00 (  0.08)	 +0.46 (  0.05)
> > threads-sockets 	1 group 	 1.00 (  0.80)	 -0.08 (  1.06)
> > threads-sockets 	2 groups 	 1.00 (  0.55)	 +0.06 (  0.85)
> > threads-sockets 	4 groups 	 1.00 (  1.00)	 -2.13 (  0.18)
> > threads-sockets 	8 groups 	 1.00 (  0.07)	 -0.41 (  0.08)
> > 
> > netperf
> > =======
> > case            	load    	baseline(std%)	compare%( std%)
> > TCP_RR          	28 threads	 1.00 (  0.50)	 +0.19 (  0.53)
> > TCP_RR          	56 threads	 1.00 (  0.33)	 +0.31 (  0.35)
> > TCP_RR          	84 threads	 1.00 (  0.23)	 +0.15 (  0.28)
> > TCP_RR          	112 threads	 1.00 (  0.20)	 +0.03 (  0.21)
> > TCP_RR          	140 threads	 1.00 (  0.17)	 +0.20 (  0.18)
> > TCP_RR          	168 threads	 1.00 (  0.17)	+112.84 ( 40.35)
> > TCP_RR          	196 threads	 1.00 ( 16.66)	 +0.39 ( 15.72)
> > TCP_RR          	224 threads	 1.00 ( 10.28)	 +0.05 (  9.97)
> > UDP_RR          	28 threads	 1.00 ( 16.15)	 -0.13 (  0.93)
> > UDP_RR          	56 threads	 1.00 (  7.76)	 +1.24 (  0.44)
> > UDP_RR          	84 threads	 1.00 ( 11.68)	 -0.49 (  6.33)
> > UDP_RR          	112 threads	 1.00 (  8.49)	 -0.21 (  7.77)
> > UDP_RR          	140 threads	 1.00 (  8.49)	 +2.05 ( 19.88)
> > UDP_RR          	168 threads	 1.00 (  8.91)	 +1.67 ( 11.74)
> > UDP_RR          	196 threads	 1.00 ( 19.96)	 +4.35 ( 21.37)
> > UDP_RR          	224 threads	 1.00 ( 19.44)	 +4.38 ( 16.61)
> > 
> > tbench
> > ======
> > case            	load    	baseline(std%)	compare%( std%)
> > loopback        	28 threads	 1.00 (  0.12)	 +0.57 (  0.12)
> > loopback        	56 threads	 1.00 (  0.11)	 +0.42 (  0.11)
> > loopback        	84 threads	 1.00 (  0.09)	 +0.71 (  0.03)
> > loopback        	112 threads	 1.00 (  0.03)	 -0.13 (  0.08)
> > loopback        	140 threads	 1.00 (  0.29)	 +0.59 (  0.01)
> > loopback        	168 threads	 1.00 (  0.01)	 +0.86 (  0.03)
> > loopback        	196 threads	 1.00 (  0.02)	 +0.97 (  0.21)
> > loopback        	224 threads	 1.00 (  0.04)	 +0.83 (  0.22)
> > 
> > schbench
> > ========
> > case            	load    	baseline(std%)	compare%( std%)
> > normal          	1 mthread	 1.00 (  0.00)	 -8.82 (  0.00)
> > normal          	2 mthreads	 1.00 (  0.00)	 +0.00 (  0.00)
> > normal          	4 mthreads	 1.00 (  0.00)	+17.02 (  0.00)
> > normal          	8 mthreads	 1.00 (  0.00)	 -4.84 (  0.00)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
> > ---
> >   include/linux/sched/topology.h |  6 +++++
> >   kernel/sched/core.c            |  1 +
> >   kernel/sched/fair.c            | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   kernel/sched/features.h        |  1 +
> >   kernel/sched/sched.h           |  2 ++
> >   kernel/sched/topology.c        |  3 ++-
> >   6 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/topology.h b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > index 816df6cc444e..c03076850a67 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > @@ -82,8 +82,14 @@ struct sched_domain_shared {
> >   	atomic_t	nr_busy_cpus;
> >   	int		has_idle_cores;
> >   	int		nr_idle_scan;
> > +	unsigned long	overloaded_cpus[];
> >   };
> > +static inline struct cpumask *sdo_mask(struct sched_domain_shared *sds)
> > +{
> > +	return to_cpumask(sds->overloaded_cpus);
> > +}
> > +
> >   struct sched_domain {
> >   	/* These fields must be setup */
> >   	struct sched_domain __rcu *parent;	/* top domain must be null terminated */
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index d3e2c5a7c1b7..452eb63ee6f6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -5395,6 +5395,7 @@ void scheduler_tick(void)
> >   		resched_latency = cpu_resched_latency(rq);
> >   	calc_global_load_tick(rq);
> >   	sched_core_tick(rq);
> > +	update_overloaded_rq(rq);
> 
> I didn't see this update in idle path. Is this on your intend?
> 
It is intended to exclude the idle path. My thought was that, since
the avg_util has contained the historic activity, checking the cpu
status in each idle path seems to have no much difference...
> >   	rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index f80ae86bb404..34b1650f85f6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -6323,6 +6323,50 @@ static inline int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd
> >   #endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_SMT */
> > +/* derived from group_is_overloaded() */
> > +static inline bool rq_overloaded(struct rq *rq, int cpu, unsigned int imbalance_pct)
> > +{
> > +	if (rq->nr_running - rq->cfs.idle_h_nr_running <= 1)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if ((SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE * 100) <
> > +			(cpu_util_cfs(cpu) * imbalance_pct))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	if ((SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE * imbalance_pct) <
> > +			(cpu_runnable(rq) * 100))
> > +		return true;
> 
> So the filter contains cpus that over-utilized or overloaded now.
> This steps further to make the filter reliable while at the cost
> of sacrificing scan efficiency.
> 
Right. Ideally if there is a 'realtime' idle cpumask for SIS, the
scan would be quite accurate. The issue is how to maintain this
cpumask in low cost.
> The idea behind my recent patches is to keep the filter radical,
> but use it conservatively.
> 
Do you mean, update the per-core idle filter frequently, but only
propogate the filter to LLC-cpumask when the system is overloaded?
> > +
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void update_overloaded_rq(struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +	struct sched_domain_shared *sds;
> > +	struct sched_domain *sd;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	if (!sched_feat(SIS_FILTER))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> > +	sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc, cpu));
> > +	if (unlikely(!sd))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	sds = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, cpu));
> > +	if (unlikely(!sds))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	if (rq_overloaded(rq, cpu, sd->imbalance_pct)) {
> 
> I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to use LLC imbalance pct here,
> because we are comparing inside the LLC rather than between the LLCs.
> 
Right, imbalance_pct could not be of LLC's, it could be of the core domain's
imbalance_pct.
> > +		/* avoid duplicated write, mitigate cache contention */
> > +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sdo_mask(sds)))
> > +			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, sdo_mask(sds));
> > +	} else {
> > +		if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sdo_mask(sds)))
> > +			cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, sdo_mask(sds));
> > +	}
> > +}
> >   /*
> >    * Scan the LLC domain for idle CPUs; this is dynamically regulated by
> >    * comparing the average scan cost (tracked in sd->avg_scan_cost) against the
> > @@ -6383,6 +6427,9 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
> >   		}
> >   	}
> > +	if (sched_feat(SIS_FILTER) && !has_idle_core && sd->shared)
> > +		cpumask_andnot(cpus, cpus, sdo_mask(sd->shared));
> > +
> >   	for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1) {
> >   		if (has_idle_core) {
> >   			i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/features.h b/kernel/sched/features.h
> > index ee7f23c76bd3..1bebdb87c2f4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/features.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
> > @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ SCHED_FEAT(TTWU_QUEUE, true)
> >    */
> >   SCHED_FEAT(SIS_PROP, false)
> >   SCHED_FEAT(SIS_UTIL, true)
> > +SCHED_FEAT(SIS_FILTER, true)
> 
> The filter should be enabled when there is a need. If the system
> is idle enough, I don't think it's a good idea to clear out the
> overloaded cpus from domain scan. Making the filter a sched-feat
> won't help the problem.
> 
> My latest patch will only apply the filter when nr is less than
> the LLC size.
Do you mean only update the filter(idle cpu mask), or only uses the
filter in SIS when the system meets: nr_running < LLC size?

thanks,
Chenyu
> It doesn't work perfectly yet, but really better
> than doing nothing in my v4 patchset.
> 
> 
> I will give this patch a test on my machine a few days later.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists