| 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: Tue, 23 May 2023 21:44:14 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
CC: <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
<gautham.shenoy@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <bsegall@...gle.com>, <bristot@...hat.com>,
<prime.zeng@...wei.com>, <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
<ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>, <21cnbao@...il.com>,
<guodong.xu@...aro.org>, <hesham.almatary@...wei.com>,
<john.garry@...wei.com>, <shenyang39@...wei.com>,
<kprateek.nayak@....com>, <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
<tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v7 2/2] sched/fair: Scan cluster before scanning
LLC in wake-up path
On 2023-05-22 at 20:42:19 +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> Hi Chen,
>
> On 2023/5/22 14:29, Chen Yu wrote:
> > Hi Yicong,
> > On 2022-09-15 at 15:34:23 +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> >> From: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
> >>
[snip...]
>
> Thanks for the further information. The result of netperf/tbench looks good as we
> image, the cluster wakeup expects to gain more benefit when the system is under
> loaded or well-loaded. May I know how many CPUs sharing cluster on Jacobsvilla?
>
There are 4 CPUs per cluster on Jacobsville.
[snip...]
> >> @@ -6550,7 +6574,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> >> /*
> >> * If the previous CPU is cache affine and idle, don't be stupid:
> >> */
> >> - if (prev != target && cpus_share_cache(prev, target) &&
> >> + if (prev != target && cpus_share_lowest_cache(prev, target) &&
> > This change impacts hackbench in socket mode a bit. It seems that for hackbench even
> > putting the wakee on its previous CPU in the same LLC is better than putting it on
> > current cluster. But it seems to be hackbench specific.
> >
>
> ...without this do you still see the same improvement at under-loaded case (threads less-equal the CPU
> numbers) for tbench/netperf?
> The idea here is to always try to wakeup in the same cluster of the
> target to benefit from the cluster cache but the early test for the prev and recent used cpu may break
> that. Keep it as is, at low load the prev cpu or recent used cpu get more chance to be idle so we take
> less chance to benefit from the cluster and gain less performance improvement.
>
Right. Without above change I saw lower improvement at lightly load case for netperf/tbench.
> In the hackbench case as you noticed, the utilization can reach 100% ideally so the SIS_UTIL
> will regulate the scanning number to 4 or around. If the prev/recent used CPU is not in the same
> cluster with target, we're about to scanning the cluster and when found no idle CPU and has
> run out of the scanning number, we'll fallback to wakeup on the target. That maybe the reason
> why observed more wakeups on target rather than previous CPU.
>
Looks reasonable. When the budget of scanning number is low, we can not find an idle target
on local cluster and terminates scanning for an idle prev on remote cluster, although that
prev could be a better choice than target cpu.
> In this case I wondering choosing prev cpu or recent used cpu after scanning the cluster can help
> the situation here, like the snippet below (kinds of messy though).
>
This change makes sense to me. I only modified it a little bit to only give prev a second
chance. With your patch applied, the improvement of netperf/tbench remains while the
hackbench big regress was gone.
hackbench
=========
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
process-pipe 1-groups 1.00 ( 2.35) -0.65 ( 1.81)
process-pipe 2-groups 1.00 ( 0.42) -2.16 ( 1.12)
process-pipe 4-groups 1.00 ( 1.84) +0.72 ( 1.34)
process-pipe 8-groups 1.00 ( 2.81) +1.12 ( 3.88)
process-sockets 1-groups 1.00 ( 1.88) -0.99 ( 4.84)
process-sockets 2-groups 1.00 ( 5.49) -4.50 ( 4.09)
process-sockets 4-groups 1.00 ( 3.54) +2.28 ( 3.13)
process-sockets 8-groups 1.00 ( 0.79) -0.13 ( 1.28)
threads-pipe 1-groups 1.00 ( 1.73) -2.39 ( 0.40)
threads-pipe 2-groups 1.00 ( 0.73) +2.88 ( 1.94)
threads-pipe 4-groups 1.00 ( 0.64) +1.12 ( 1.82)
threads-pipe 8-groups 1.00 ( 1.55) -1.59 ( 1.20)
threads-sockets 1-groups 1.00 ( 3.76) +3.21 ( 3.56)
threads-sockets 2-groups 1.00 ( 1.20) -5.56 ( 2.64)
threads-sockets 4-groups 1.00 ( 2.65) +1.48 ( 4.91)
threads-sockets 8-groups 1.00 ( 0.08) +0.18 ( 0.15)
netperf
=======
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
TCP_RR 6-threads 1.00 ( 0.91) +2.87 ( 0.83)
TCP_RR 12-threads 1.00 ( 0.22) +3.48 ( 0.31)
TCP_RR 18-threads 1.00 ( 0.41) +7.81 ( 0.48)
TCP_RR 24-threads 1.00 ( 1.02) -0.32 ( 1.25)
TCP_RR 30-threads 1.00 ( 4.67) -0.04 ( 5.14)
TCP_RR 36-threads 1.00 ( 4.53) -0.13 ( 4.37)
TCP_RR 42-threads 1.00 ( 3.92) -0.15 ( 3.07)
TCP_RR 48-threads 1.00 ( 2.07) -0.17 ( 1.52)
UDP_RR 6-threads 1.00 ( 0.98) +4.50 ( 2.38)
UDP_RR 12-threads 1.00 ( 0.26) +3.64 ( 0.25)
UDP_RR 18-threads 1.00 ( 0.27) +9.93 ( 0.55)
UDP_RR 24-threads 1.00 ( 1.22) +0.13 ( 1.33)
UDP_RR 30-threads 1.00 ( 3.86) -0.03 ( 5.05)
UDP_RR 36-threads 1.00 ( 2.81) +0.10 ( 3.37)
UDP_RR 42-threads 1.00 ( 3.51) -0.26 ( 2.94)
UDP_RR 48-threads 1.00 ( 12.54) +0.74 ( 9.44)
tbench
======
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
loopback 6-threads 1.00 ( 0.04) +2.94 ( 0.26)
loopback 12-threads 1.00 ( 0.30) +4.58 ( 0.12)
loopback 18-threads 1.00 ( 0.37) +12.38 ( 0.10)
loopback 24-threads 1.00 ( 0.56) -0.27 ( 0.50)
loopback 30-threads 1.00 ( 0.17) -0.18 ( 0.06)
loopback 36-threads 1.00 ( 0.25) -0.73 ( 0.44)
loopback 42-threads 1.00 ( 0.10) -0.22 ( 0.18)
loopback 48-threads 1.00 ( 0.29) -0.48 ( 0.19)
schbench
========
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
normal 1-mthreads 1.00 ( 0.00) +0.00 ( 0.00)
normal 2-mthreads 1.00 ( 0.00) +0.00 ( 0.00)
normal 4-mthreads 1.00 ( 6.80) +2.78 ( 8.08)
normal 8-mthreads 1.00 ( 3.65) -0.23 ( 4.30)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 0989116b0796..07495b44c68f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -7127,7 +7127,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
bool has_idle_core = false;
struct sched_domain *sd;
unsigned long task_util, util_min, util_max;
- int i, recent_used_cpu;
+ int i, recent_used_cpu, prev_aff = -1;
/*
* On asymmetric system, update task utilization because we will check
@@ -7152,10 +7152,13 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
/*
* If the previous CPU is cache affine and idle, don't be stupid:
*/
- if (prev != target && cpus_share_lowest_cache(prev, target) &&
+ if (prev != target && cpus_share_cache(prev, target) &&
(available_idle_cpu(prev) || sched_idle_cpu(prev)) &&
- asym_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, prev))
- return prev;
+ asym_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, prev)) {
+ if (cpus_share_lowest_cache(prev, target))
+ return prev;
+ prev_aff = prev;
+ }
/*
* Allow a per-cpu kthread to stack with the wakee if the
@@ -7223,6 +7226,13 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
return i;
+ /*
+ * Give prev another chance, in case prev has not been
+ * scanned in select_idle_cpu() due to nr constrain.
+ */
+ if (prev_aff != -1)
+ return prev_aff;
+
return target;
}
thanks,
Chenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists