| 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: <ZE/XheuZdT5pGDgl@chenyu5-mobl1>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 23:15:17 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"K Prateek Nayak" <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
"Yicong Yang" <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Honglei Wang <wanghonglei@...ichuxing.com>,
"Len Brown" <len.brown@...el.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
kernel test robot <yujie.liu@...el.com>,
"Arjan Van De Ven" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] sched/fair: Introduce SIS_CURRENT to wake up
short task on current CPU
Hi Mika,
On 2023-04-29 at 21:34:06 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-04-29 at 07:16 +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > [Problem Statement]
> > For a workload that is doing frequent context switches, the throughput
> > scales well until the number of instances reaches a peak point. After
> > that peak point, the throughput drops significantly if the number of
> > instances continue to increase.
> >
> > The will-it-scale context_switch1 test case exposes the issue. The
> > test platform has 2 x 56C/112T and 224 CPUs in total. will-it-scale
> > launches 1, 8, 16 ... instances respectively. Each instance is composed
> > of 2 tasks, and each pair of tasks would do ping-pong scheduling via
> > pipe_read() and pipe_write(). No task is bound to any CPU. It is found
> > that, once the number of instances is higher than 56, the throughput
> > drops accordingly:
> >
> > ^
> > throughput|
> > | X
> > | X X X
> > | X X X
> > | X X
> > | X X
> > | X
> > | X
> > | X
> > | X
> > |
> > +-----------------.------------------->
> > 56
> > number of instances
>
> Should these buddy pairs not start interfering with one another at 112
> instances instead of 56? NR_CPUS/2 buddy pair instances is the point at
> which trying to turn waker/wakee overlap into throughput should tend
> toward being a loser due to man-in-the-middle wakeup delay pain more
> than offsetting overlap recovery gain, rendering sync wakeup thereafter
> an ever more likely win.
>
Thank you for taking a look at this. Yes, you are right, I did not
described this clearly. Actually above figure was draw when I first
found the issue when there is only 1 socket online(112 thread in total).
I should update the figure to the 224 CPUs case.
> Anyway...
>
> What I see in my box, and I bet a virtual nickle it's a player in your
> box as well, is WA_WEIGHT making a mess of things by stacking tasks,
> sometimes very badly. Below, I start NR_CPUS tbench buddy pairs in
> crusty ole i4790 desktop box with WA_WEIGHT turned off, then turn it on
> remotely as to not have noisy GUI muck up my demo.
>
> ...
> 8 3155749 3606.79 MB/sec warmup 38 sec latency 3.852 ms
> 8 3238485 3608.75 MB/sec warmup 39 sec latency 3.839 ms
> 8 3321578 3608.59 MB/sec warmup 40 sec latency 3.882 ms
> 8 3404746 3608.09 MB/sec warmup 41 sec latency 2.273 ms
> 8 3487885 3607.58 MB/sec warmup 42 sec latency 3.869 ms
> 8 3571034 3607.12 MB/sec warmup 43 sec latency 3.855 ms
> 8 3654067 3607.48 MB/sec warmup 44 sec latency 3.857 ms
> 8 3736973 3608.83 MB/sec warmup 45 sec latency 4.008 ms
> 8 3820160 3608.33 MB/sec warmup 46 sec latency 3.849 ms
> 8 3902963 3607.60 MB/sec warmup 47 sec latency 14.241 ms
> 8 3986117 3607.17 MB/sec warmup 48 sec latency 20.290 ms
> 8 4069256 3606.70 MB/sec warmup 49 sec latency 28.284 ms
> 8 4151986 3608.35 MB/sec warmup 50 sec latency 17.216 ms
> 8 4235070 3608.06 MB/sec warmup 51 sec latency 23.221 ms
> 8 4318221 3607.81 MB/sec warmup 52 sec latency 28.285 ms
> 8 4401456 3607.29 MB/sec warmup 53 sec latency 20.835 ms
> 8 4484606 3607.06 MB/sec warmup 54 sec latency 28.943 ms
> 8 4567609 3607.32 MB/sec warmup 55 sec latency 28.254 ms
>
> Where I turned it on is hard to miss.
>
> Short duration thread pool workers can be stacked all the way to the
> ceiling by WA_WEIGHT during burst wakeups, with wake_wide() not being
> able to intervene due to lack of cross coupling between waker/wakees
> leading to heuristic failure. A (now long) while ago I caught that
> happening with firefox event threads, it launched 32 of 'em in my 8 rq
> box (hmm), and them being essentially the scheduler equivalent of
> neutrinos (nearly massless), we stuffed 'em all into one rq.. and got
> away with it because those particular threads don't seem to do much of
> anything. However, were they to go active, the latency hit that we set
> up could have stung mightily. That scenario being highly generic leads
> me to suspect that somewhere out there in the big wide world, folks are
> eating that burst serialization.
Thank you for this information. Yes, task stacking can be quite annoying
for latency. And in my previous patch version, Prateek from AMD, Abel
from Bytedance, and Yicong from Hisilicon have expressed their concern
on the task stacking risk. So we tried several versions carefully to
not break their use case. For the WA_WEIGHT issue you described(and
I also saw your email offline), it is interesting and I'll try
to run similar test on a 4C/8T system to reproduce it.
thanks,
Chenyu
>
> -Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists