| 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, 19 Oct 2022 20:28:59 +0800
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 4/4] sched/fair: Deal with SIS scan failures
When SIS_CORE is active, idle cpus are recorded into a cpumask at
CORE granule, and the SIS domain scan tries to locate an idle cpu
in this cpumask. So the quality of the cpumask matters. There are
generally two types of cpus that need to be dealt with:
- False positive: the cpus that are present in the idle cpumask
but is actually busy. This can be caused by task enqueuing to
these cpus without removing from the cpumask immediately. To
solve this, the cpumask needs to be shrinked if poor quality
of the mask is observed.
- True negative: the cpus that are idle but not show up in the
idle cpumask. This is due to the rule of CORE granule update
that these idle cpus will be ignored when their SMT siblings
are already present in the idle cpumask.
According to the nature of the two type cpus and some heuristics,
the strategies against SIS scan failures are as follows:
- It can be predicted that if a scan fails, the next scan from the
same cpu will probably fail too. So mark these cpus fail-prone.
A scan from fail-prone cpu is the time to shrink the cpumask.
- All true negative cpus are the SMT siblings of the false positive
cpus, and are taken for granted to be treated as the fallbacks of
the false positive cpus. So a fail-prone scan should also check
the SMT siblings to see if any true negative cpu exists.
The number of false positive cpus being removed during one scan is
not constrained, but it will be implicitly constrained by the load
of the LLC. If LLC is under heavy pressure, both the weight of idle
cpumask and the scan depth are reduced, so does the number of cpus
removed.
To sum up, this patch marks the cpus fail-prone if scans from them
failed last time, so next time scanning from them will also check
their SMT siblings to see if any true negative cpus available. The
false positive cpus will be removed during fail-prone scans if its
belonging core is fully busy.
Benchmark
=========
All of the benchmarks are done inside a normal cpu cgroup in a clean
environment with cpu turbo disabled, and test machines are:
A) A dual socket machine modeled Intel Xeon(R) Platinum 8260 with SNC
disabled, so there are 2 NUMA nodes each of which has 24C/48T. Each
NUMA shares an LLC.
B) A dual socket machine modeled AMD EPYC 7Y83 64-Core Processor with
NPS1 enabled, so there are 2 NUMA nodes each of which has 64C/128T.
Each NUMA node contains several LLCs sized of 16 cpus.
The 'baseline' is based on tip sched/core fb04563d1cae (v5.19.0) with
the first 2 patches of this series applied. While 'sis_core' includes
the whole patchset.
Results
=======
hackbench-process-pipes
(A) baseline sis_core
Amean 1 0.2540 ( 0.00%) 0.2533 ( 0.26%)
Amean 4 0.6220 ( 0.00%) 0.5993 ( 3.64%)
Amean 7 0.8020 ( 0.00%) 0.7663 * 4.45%*
Amean 12 1.1823 ( 0.00%) 1.1037 * 6.65%*
Amean 21 2.7717 ( 0.00%) 2.2203 * 19.89%*
Amean 30 5.1200 ( 0.00%) 3.7133 * 27.47%*
Amean 48 8.5890 ( 0.00%) 7.0863 * 17.50%*
Amean 79 11.2580 ( 0.00%) 10.3717 * 7.87%*
Amean 110 13.1283 ( 0.00%) 12.4133 * 5.45%*
Amean 141 15.5967 ( 0.00%) 14.4883 * 7.11%*
Amean 172 18.1153 ( 0.00%) 17.2557 * 4.75%*
Amean 203 21.1340 ( 0.00%) 20.2807 ( 4.04%)
Amean 234 23.8227 ( 0.00%) 22.8510 ( 4.08%)
Amean 265 26.8293 ( 0.00%) 25.7367 * 4.07%*
Amean 296 29.5800 ( 0.00%) 28.7847 ( 2.69%)
(B)
Amean 1 0.3650 ( 0.00%) 0.3510 ( 3.84%)
Amean 4 0.4837 ( 0.00%) 0.4753 ( 1.72%)
Amean 7 0.4997 ( 0.00%) 0.5073 ( -1.53%)
Amean 12 0.5863 ( 0.00%) 0.5807 ( 0.97%)
Amean 21 0.8930 ( 0.00%) 0.8953 ( -0.26%)
Amean 30 1.2530 ( 0.00%) 1.2633 ( -0.82%)
Amean 48 1.9743 ( 0.00%) 1.9023 ( 3.65%)
Amean 79 3.4933 ( 0.00%) 3.2820 ( 6.05%)
Amean 110 5.5963 ( 0.00%) 5.3923 ( 3.65%)
Amean 141 7.6550 ( 0.00%) 6.8633 ( 10.34%)
Amean 172 8.8323 ( 0.00%) 8.2973 * 6.06%*
Amean 203 10.8683 ( 0.00%) 9.5170 * 12.43%*
Amean 234 11.8683 ( 0.00%) 10.6217 ( 10.50%)
Amean 265 13.4717 ( 0.00%) 11.9357 * 11.40%*
Amean 296 13.8130 ( 0.00%) 12.7430 * 7.75%*
The results on machine A can approximately divided into 3 sections:
- busy, e.g. <21 groups
- overloaded, e.g. 21~48 groups
- saturated, the rest part
The two cases of 296 groups in B and 110 groups in A have same amount
of tasks per cpu. So does 30 groups in B and 12 groups in A. So the
sections on A also apply to B, except that B only has the first two.
This implies that this feature seems to have consistant behaviour on
LLCs with different sizes.
For the busy part the result is neutral with slight wins or loss.
It's not hard to find an idle cpu in such case, so SIS_CORE doesn't
outperform the linear scanner, considering the cpumask is maintained
at a cost which will negate the slight benefit.
Once load increases, SIS_CORE helps improving the throughput quite a
lot by squeezing out the hidden capacity of the cpus. And even under
extreme load pressure when the cpu capacity is almost fully utilized,
there is still some can be exploited.
Although it is unlikely to be such loaded in the real world, the long
running workloads like training jobs can also keep cpus busy and can
benefit from this feature a lot.
netperf
(A-udp) baseline sis_core
Hmean send-64 214.34 ( 0.00%) 210.79 * -1.65%*
Hmean send-128 427.90 ( 0.00%) 417.96 * -2.32%*
Hmean send-256 839.65 ( 0.00%) 823.78 * -1.89%*
Hmean send-1024 3207.45 ( 0.00%) 3167.96 * -1.23%*
Hmean send-2048 6097.24 ( 0.00%) 6089.01 ( -0.13%)
Hmean send-3312 9350.83 ( 0.00%) 9299.09 ( -0.55%)
Hmean send-4096 11368.25 ( 0.00%) 11186.44 * -1.60%*
Hmean send-8192 18273.21 ( 0.00%) 18103.81 ( -0.93%)
Hmean send-16384 28207.81 ( 0.00%) 28259.82 ( 0.18%)
(B-udp)
Hmean send-64 249.97 ( 0.00%) 256.99 * 2.81%*
Hmean send-128 500.68 ( 0.00%) 514.44 * 2.75%*
Hmean send-256 991.59 ( 0.00%) 1017.38 * 2.60%*
Hmean send-1024 3913.02 ( 0.00%) 3982.68 * 1.78%*
Hmean send-2048 7627.99 ( 0.00%) 7590.30 ( -0.49%)
Hmean send-3312 11907.07 ( 0.00%) 12114.03 * 1.74%*
Hmean send-4096 14300.09 ( 0.00%) 14753.34 * 3.17%*
Hmean send-8192 24576.21 ( 0.00%) 25431.42 * 3.48%*
Hmean send-16384 42105.89 ( 0.00%) 41813.30 ( -0.69%)
(A-tcp)
Hmean 64 1191.91 ( 0.00%) 1220.47 * 2.40%*
Hmean 128 2318.60 ( 0.00%) 2354.56 ( 1.55%)
Hmean 256 4267.41 ( 0.00%) 4226.72 ( -0.95%)
Hmean 1024 13190.66 ( 0.00%) 13065.91 ( -0.95%)
Hmean 2048 20466.22 ( 0.00%) 20704.66 ( 1.17%)
Hmean 3312 24363.57 ( 0.00%) 24613.99 * 1.03%*
Hmean 4096 26144.44 ( 0.00%) 26204.24 ( 0.23%)
Hmean 8192 30387.77 ( 0.00%) 30703.65 * 1.04%*
Hmean 16384 34942.71 ( 0.00%) 34205.44 * -2.11%*
(B-tcp)
Hmean 64 1971.18 ( 0.00%) 2120.61 * 7.58%*
Hmean 128 3752.96 ( 0.00%) 3995.68 * 6.47%*
Hmean 256 6861.58 ( 0.00%) 7342.93 * 7.02%*
Hmean 1024 21966.06 ( 0.00%) 23725.30 * 8.01%*
Hmean 2048 33949.66 ( 0.00%) 35620.67 * 4.92%*
Hmean 3312 40681.75 ( 0.00%) 41543.26 * 2.12%*
Hmean 4096 44309.70 ( 0.00%) 45390.03 * 2.44%*
Hmean 8192 50909.35 ( 0.00%) 52157.16 * 2.45%*
Hmean 16384 57198.37 ( 0.00%) 57686.96 ( 0.85%)
The netperf has an almost 100% success rate on used target, prev or
recent cpus, so the domain scan is generally not performed. This test
is to see how much overhead of maintaining the idle cpumask and the
result is neutral, which sounds like the overhead is acceptable.
tbench4 Throughput
(A) baseline sis_core
Hmean 1 280.53 ( 0.00%) 289.44 * 3.17%*
Hmean 2 561.94 ( 0.00%) 571.46 * 1.69%*
Hmean 4 1109.14 ( 0.00%) 1129.88 * 1.87%*
Hmean 8 2229.39 ( 0.00%) 2266.52 * 1.67%*
Hmean 16 4383.06 ( 0.00%) 4473.48 * 2.06%*
Hmean 32 7124.14 ( 0.00%) 7223.83 * 1.40%*
Hmean 64 8815.41 ( 0.00%) 8770.21 * -0.51%*
Hmean 128 19519.35 ( 0.00%) 20337.24 * 4.19%*
Hmean 256 19392.24 ( 0.00%) 20052.98 * 3.41%*
Hmean 384 19201.07 ( 0.00%) 19563.63 * 1.89%*
(B)
Hmean 1 515.98 ( 0.00%) 499.91 * -3.12%*
Hmean 2 1031.54 ( 0.00%) 1044.38 * 1.24%*
Hmean 4 1953.44 ( 0.00%) 1959.30 * 0.30%*
Hmean 8 3622.52 ( 0.00%) 3773.08 * 4.16%*
Hmean 16 6545.82 ( 0.00%) 6814.46 * 4.10%*
Hmean 32 13697.73 ( 0.00%) 13078.74 * -4.52%*
Hmean 64 25589.59 ( 0.00%) 24576.52 * -3.96%*
Hmean 128 35667.64 ( 0.00%) 37590.20 * 5.39%*
Hmean 256 65215.85 ( 0.00%) 64921.74 * -0.45%*
Hmean 512 66035.57 ( 0.00%) 63812.48 * -3.37%*
Hmean 1024 53391.64 ( 0.00%) 62356.50 * 16.79%*
Like netperf, tbench4 benchmark also has a high success rate ~39% on
the cache hot cpus, and the SIS overall success rate is ~45%. This
benchmark runs a fast idling workload and makes the SIS idle cpumask
quite unstable, which is a disaster to this feature. Even so, not
much but still some improvement can be seen from the result.
Conclusion
==========
The overhead of maintaining the idle cpumasks seems acceptable, and
this cost can trade for considerable throughput improvement once LLC
becomes busier in which case less idle cpus are available.
Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
kernel/sched/sched.h | 3 ++
2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 3aa699e9d4af..d06d59ac2f05 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6309,6 +6309,16 @@ static void update_idle_cpu(int cpu)
}
}
+static inline bool should_scan_sibling(int cpu)
+{
+ return cmpxchg(&cpu_rq(cpu)->sis_scan_sibling, 1, 0);
+}
+
+static inline void set_scan_sibling(int cpu)
+{
+ WRITE_ONCE(cpu_rq(cpu)->sis_scan_sibling, 1);
+}
+
/*
* Scans the local SMT mask to see if the entire core is idle, and records this
* information in sd_llc_shared->has_idle_cores.
@@ -6384,17 +6394,20 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpu
/*
* Scan the local SMT mask for idle CPUs.
*/
-static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
+static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpus, int exclude)
{
int cpu;
- for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target), p->cpus_ptr) {
- if (cpu == target)
+ for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(core), p->cpus_ptr) {
+ if (exclude && cpu == core)
continue;
if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu))
return cpu;
}
+ if (cpus)
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(core, cpus);
+
return -1;
}
@@ -6409,12 +6422,21 @@ static inline bool test_idle_cores(int cpu)
return false;
}
+static inline bool should_scan_sibling(int cpu)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
+static inline void set_scan_sibling(int cpu)
+{
+}
+
static inline int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpus, int *idle_cpu)
{
return __select_idle_cpu(core, p);
}
-static inline int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
+static inline int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpus, int exclude)
{
return -1;
}
@@ -6434,6 +6456,7 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
int this = smp_processor_id();
struct sched_domain *this_sd = NULL;
+ bool scan_sibling = false;
u64 time = 0;
if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && !has_idle_core) {
@@ -6479,20 +6502,31 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
}
}
- if (sched_feat(SIS_CORE) && sched_smt_active())
+ if (sched_feat(SIS_CORE) && sched_smt_active()) {
+ /*
+ * Due to the nature of idle core scanning, has_idle_core
+ * hint should also consume the scan_sibling flag even
+ * though it doesn't use the flag when scanning.
+ */
+ scan_sibling = should_scan_sibling(target);
icpus = sched_domain_icpus(sd);
+ }
cpumask_and(cpus, icpus ? icpus : sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1) {
+ if (!--nr)
+ break;
+
if (has_idle_core) {
i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
return i;
-
+ } else if (scan_sibling) {
+ idle_cpu = select_idle_smt(p, cpu, icpus, 0);
+ if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
+ break;
} else {
- if (!--nr)
- return -1;
idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p);
if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
break;
@@ -6503,9 +6537,25 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
set_idle_cores(target, false);
if (icpus && idle_cpu == -1) {
- /* Reset the idle cpu mask if a full scan fails */
- if (nr > 0)
- cpumask_clear(icpus);
+ if (nr > 0 && (has_idle_core || scan_sibling)) {
+ /*
+ * Reset the idle cpu mask if a full scan fails,
+ * but ignore the !has_idle_core case which should
+ * have already been fixed during scan.
+ */
+ if (has_idle_core)
+ cpumask_clear(icpus);
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * As for partial scan failures, it will probably
+ * fail again next time scanning from the same cpu.
+ * Due to the SIS_CORE rule of CORE granule update,
+ * some idle cpus can be missed in the mask. So it
+ * would be reasonable to scan SMT siblings as well
+ * if the scan is fail-prone.
+ */
+ set_scan_sibling(target);
+ }
}
if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && this_sd && !has_idle_core) {
@@ -6657,7 +6707,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
has_idle_core = test_idle_cores(target);
if (!has_idle_core && cpus_share_cache(prev, target)) {
- i = select_idle_smt(p, prev);
+ i = select_idle_smt(p, prev, NULL, 1);
if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
return i;
}
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 1fc198be1ffd..c7f8ed5021e6 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -971,6 +971,9 @@ struct rq {
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
unsigned int ttwu_pending;
+#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
+ int sis_scan_sibling;
+#endif
#endif
u64 nr_switches;
--
2.37.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists