| 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: <3402dcc4-d52f-d99f-e6ce-b435478a5a59@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 16:00:39 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Gautham Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>
Subject: Re: [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Multi-LLC select_idle_sibling()
Hello Peter,
On 6/13/2023 1:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 12:02:15AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> Below are the benchmark results on different NPS modes for SIS_NODE
>> and SIS_NODE + additional suggested changes. None of them give a
>> total win. Limit helps but there are cases where it still leads to
>> regression. I'll leave full details below.
>>
>> On 6/2/2023 12:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:43:37AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>>>> Grouping near-CCX for the offerings that do not have 2CCX per CCD will
>>>> prevent degenration and limit the search scope yes. Here is what I'll
>>>> do, let me check if limiting search scope helps first, and then start
>>>> fiddling with the topology. How does that sound?
>>>
>>> So my preference would be the topology based solution, since the search
>>> limit is random magic numbers that happen to work for 'your' machine but
>>> who knows what it'll do for some other poor architecture that happens to
>>> trip this.
>>>
>>> That said; verifying the limit helps at all is of course a good start,
>>> because if it doesn't then the topology thing will likely also not help
>>> much.
>>
>> o NPS Modes
>>
>> NPS Modes are used to logically divide single socket into
>> multiple NUMA region.
>> Following is the NUMA configuration for each NPS mode on the system:
>>
>> NPS1: Each socket is a NUMA node.
>> Total 2 NUMA nodes in the dual socket machine.
>>
>> Node 0: 0-63, 128-191
>> Node 1: 64-127, 192-255
>>
>> - 8CCX per node
>
> Ok, so this is a dual-socket Zen3 with 64 cores per socket, right?
Yup!
>
>
>> o Kernel Versions
>>
>> - tip - tip:sched/core at commit e2a1f85bf9f5 "sched/psi:
>> Avoid resetting the min update period when it is
>> unnecessary")
>>
>> - SIS_NODE - tip:sched/core + this patch
>>
>> - SIS_NODE_LIMIT - tip:sched/core + this patch + nr=4 limit for SIS_NODE
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230601111326.GV4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/)
>>
>> - SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT - tip:sched/core + this patch
>> + new sched domain (Multi-Multi-Core or MMC)
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230601153522.GB559993@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/)
>> MMC domain groups 2 nearby CCX.
>
> OK, so you managed to get the NPS4 topology in NPS1 mode?
Yup! But it is a hack. I'll leave the patch at the end.
>
>> o Benchmark Results
>>
>> Note: All benchmarks were run with boost enabled and C2 disabled.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~ hackbench ~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> o NPS1
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1-groups: 3.92 (0.00 pct) 4.05 (-3.31 pct) 3.78 (3.57 pct) 3.77 (3.82 pct)
>> 2-groups: 4.58 (0.00 pct) 3.84 (16.15 pct) 4.50 (1.74 pct) 4.34 (5.24 pct)
>> 4-groups: 4.99 (0.00 pct) 3.98 (20.24 pct) 4.93 (1.20 pct) 5.01 (-0.40 pct)
>> 8-groups: 5.67 (0.00 pct) 6.05 (-6.70 pct) 5.73 (-1.05 pct) 5.95 (-4.93 pct)
>> 16-groups: 7.88 (0.00 pct) 10.56 (-34.01 pct) 7.83 (0.63 pct) 8.04 (-2.03 pct)
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1-groups: 3.82 (0.00 pct) 3.68 (3.66 pct) 3.87 (-1.30 pct) 3.74 (2.09 pct)
>> 2-groups: 4.40 (0.00 pct) 3.61 (17.95 pct) 4.45 (-1.13 pct) 4.30 (2.27 pct)
>> 4-groups: 4.84 (0.00 pct) 3.62 (25.20 pct) 4.84 (0.00 pct) 4.97 (-2.68 pct)
>> 8-groups: 5.45 (0.00 pct) 6.14 (-12.66 pct) 5.40 (0.91 pct) 5.68 (-4.22 pct)
>> 16-groups: 6.94 (0.00 pct) 8.77 (-26.36 pct) 6.57 (5.33 pct) 7.87 (-13.40 pct)
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1-groups: 3.82 (0.00 pct) 3.84 (-0.52 pct) 3.83 (-0.26 pct) 3.85 (-0.78 pct)
>> 2-groups: 4.44 (0.00 pct) 4.15 (6.53 pct) 4.43 (0.22 pct) 4.18 (5.85 pct)
>> 4-groups: 4.86 (0.00 pct) 4.95 (-1.85 pct) 4.88 (-0.41 pct) 4.79 (1.44 pct)
>> 8-groups: 5.42 (0.00 pct) 5.80 (-7.01 pct) 5.41 (0.18 pct) 5.75 (-6.08 pct)
>> 16-groups: 6.68 (0.00 pct) 9.07 (-35.77 pct) 6.72 (-0.59 pct) 8.66 (-29.64 pct)
>
> Win for NODE_LIMIT for having the least regressions, but also no real
> gains.
>
> Given NODE_TOPO does NPS4 that should be roughtly similar to limit=2 it
> should do 'better' but it doesn't, it's markedly worse... weird.
>
> In fact, none of the NPS4 numbers make any sense, if you've already
> split the whole thing into 4, you remain with 2 CCXs per node and
> NODE should be NODE_LIMIT should be NODE_TOPO.
>
> All the NODE variants should end up scanning both CCXs and performance
> should really be the same.
>
> Something's wrong there.
Yup! I'm rerunning SIS_NODE_LIMIT because the numbers are completely off.
Possibly an error on my part when applying the patch.
>
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~ tbench ~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> o NPS1
>>
>> Clients: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1 452.49 (0.00 pct) 457.94 (1.20 pct) 458.13 (1.24 pct) 447.69 (-1.06 pct)
>> 2 862.44 (0.00 pct) 879.99 (2.03 pct) 881.19 (2.17 pct) 855.91 (-0.75 pct)
>> 4 1604.27 (0.00 pct) 1618.87 (0.91 pct) 1628.00 (1.47 pct) 1627.14 (1.42 pct)
>> 8 2966.77 (0.00 pct) 3040.90 (2.49 pct) 3037.70 (2.39 pct) 2957.91 (-0.29 pct)
>> 16 5176.70 (0.00 pct) 5292.29 (2.23 pct) 5445.15 (5.18 pct) 5241.61 (1.25 pct)
>> 32 8205.24 (0.00 pct) 8949.12 (9.06 pct) 8716.02 (6.22 pct) 8494.17 (3.52 pct)
>> 64 13956.71 (0.00 pct) 14461.42 (3.61 pct) 13620.04 (-2.41 pct) 15045.43 (7.80 pct)
>> 128 24005.50 (0.00 pct) 26052.75 (8.52 pct) 24975.03 (4.03 pct) 24008.73 (0.01 pct)
>> 256 32457.61 (0.00 pct) 21999.41 (-32.22 pct) 30810.93 (-5.07 pct) 31060.12 (-4.30 pct)
>> 512 34345.24 (0.00 pct) 41166.39 (19.86 pct) 30982.94 (-9.78 pct) 31864.14 (-7.22 pct)
>> 1024 33432.92 (0.00 pct) 40900.84 (22.33 pct) 30953.61 (-7.41 pct) 32006.81 (-4.26 pct)
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> Clients: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1 453.73 (0.00 pct) 451.63 (-0.46 pct) 455.97 (0.49 pct) 453.79 (0.01 pct)
>> 2 861.71 (0.00 pct) 857.85 (-0.44 pct) 868.30 (0.76 pct) 850.14 (-1.34 pct)
>> 4 1599.14 (0.00 pct) 1609.30 (0.63 pct) 1656.08 (3.56 pct) 1619.10 (1.24 pct)
>> 8 2951.03 (0.00 pct) 2944.71 (-0.21 pct) 3034.38 (2.82 pct) 2973.52 (0.76 pct)
>> 16 5080.32 (0.00 pct) 5160.39 (1.57 pct) 5173.32 (1.83 pct) 5150.99 (1.39 pct)
>> 32 7900.41 (0.00 pct) 8039.13 (1.75 pct) 8105.69 (2.59 pct) 7956.45 (0.70 pct)
>> 64 14629.65 (0.00 pct) 15391.08 (5.20 pct) 14546.09 (-0.57 pct) 15410.41 (5.33 pct)
>> 128 23155.88 (0.00 pct) 24015.45 (3.71 pct) 24263.82 (4.78 pct) 23351.35 (0.84 pct)
>> 256 33449.57 (0.00 pct) 33571.08 (0.36 pct) 32048.20 (-4.18 pct) 32869.85 (-1.73 pct)
>> 512 33757.47 (0.00 pct) 39872.69 (18.11 pct) 32945.66 (-2.40 pct) 34526.17 (2.27 pct)
>> 1024 34823.14 (0.00 pct) 41090.15 (17.99 pct) 32404.40 (-6.94 pct) 34522.97 (-0.86 pct)
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> Clients: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1 450.14 (0.00 pct) 454.46 (0.95 pct) 454.53 (0.97 pct) 451.43 (0.28 pct)
>> 2 863.26 (0.00 pct) 868.94 (0.65 pct) 891.89 (3.31 pct) 866.74 (0.40 pct)
>> 4 1618.71 (0.00 pct) 1599.13 (-1.20 pct) 1630.29 (0.71 pct) 1610.08 (-0.53 pct)
>> 8 2929.35 (0.00 pct) 3065.12 (4.63 pct) 3064.15 (4.60 pct) 3004.74 (2.57 pct)
>> 16 5114.04 (0.00 pct) 5261.40 (2.88 pct) 5238.04 (2.42 pct) 5108.53 (-0.10 pct)
>> 32 7912.18 (0.00 pct) 8926.77 (12.82 pct) 8382.51 (5.94 pct) 8214.73 (3.82 pct)
>> 64 14424.72 (0.00 pct) 14853.61 (2.97 pct) 14273.54 (-1.04 pct) 14430.17 (0.03 pct)
>> 128 23614.97 (0.00 pct) 24506.73 (3.77 pct) 24517.76 (3.82 pct) 23296.38 (-1.34 pct)
>> 256 34365.13 (0.00 pct) 35538.42 (3.41 pct) 31909.66 (-7.14 pct) 31009.12 (-9.76 pct)
>> 512 34215.50 (0.00 pct) 36017.49 (5.26 pct) 32696.70 (-4.43 pct) 33262.55 (-2.78 pct)
>> 1024 35421.90 (0.00 pct) 35193.81 (-0.64 pct) 32611.10 (-7.93 pct) 32795.86 (-7.41 pct)
>
> tbench likes NODE
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~ stream ~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> - 10 Runs
>>
>> o NPS1
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Copy: 271317.35 (0.00 pct) 292440.22 (7.78 pct) 302540.26 (11.50 pct) 287277.25 (5.88 pct)
>> Scale: 205533.77 (0.00 pct) 203362.60 (-1.05 pct) 207750.30 (1.07 pct) 205206.26 (-0.15 pct)
>> Add: 221624.62 (0.00 pct) 225850.83 (1.90 pct) 233782.14 (5.48 pct) 229774.48 (3.67 pct)
>> Triad: 228500.68 (0.00 pct) 225885.25 (-1.14 pct) 238331.69 (4.30 pct) 240041.53 (5.05 pct)
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Copy: 277761.29 (0.00 pct) 301816.34 (8.66 pct) 293563.58 (5.68 pct) 308218.80 (10.96 pct)
>> Scale: 215193.83 (0.00 pct) 212522.72 (-1.24 pct) 215758.66 (0.26 pct) 205678.94 (-4.42 pct)
>> Add: 242725.75 (0.00 pct) 242695.13 (-0.01 pct) 246472.20 (1.54 pct) 238089.46 (-1.91 pct)
>> Triad: 237253.44 (0.00 pct) 250618.57 (5.63 pct) 239405.55 (0.90 pct) 249652.73 (5.22 pct)
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Copy: 273307.14 (0.00 pct) 255091.78 (-6.66 pct) 301926.68 (10.47 pct) 262007.26 (-4.13 pct)
>> Scale: 235715.23 (0.00 pct) 222018.36 (-5.81 pct) 224881.52 (-4.59 pct) 222282.64 (-5.69 pct)
>> Add: 244500.40 (0.00 pct) 230468.21 (-5.73 pct) 242625.18 (-0.76 pct) 227146.80 (-7.09 pct)
>> Triad: 250600.04 (0.00 pct) 236229.50 (-5.73 pct) 258064.49 (2.97 pct) 231772.02 (-7.51 pct)
>>
>> - 100 Runs
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Copy: 317381.65 (0.00 pct) 318827.08 (0.45 pct) 320898.32 (1.10 pct) 318922.96 (0.48 pct)
>> Scale: 214145.00 (0.00 pct) 206213.69 (-3.70 pct) 211019.12 (-1.45 pct) 210384.47 (-1.75 pct)
>> Add: 239243.29 (0.00 pct) 229791.67 (-3.95 pct) 233827.11 (-2.26 pct) 236659.48 (-1.07 pct)
>> Triad: 249477.76 (0.00 pct) 236843.06 (-5.06 pct) 244688.91 (-1.91 pct) 235990.67 (-5.40 pct)
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Copy: 318082.10 (0.00 pct) 322844.91 (1.49 pct) 310350.21 (-2.43 pct) 322495.84 (1.38 pct)
>> Scale: 219338.56 (0.00 pct) 218139.90 (-0.54 pct) 212288.47 (-3.21 pct) 221040.27 (0.77 pct)
>> Add: 248118.20 (0.00 pct) 249826.98 (0.68 pct) 239682.55 (-3.39 pct) 253006.79 (1.97 pct)
>> Triad: 247088.55 (0.00 pct) 260488.38 (5.42 pct) 247892.42 (0.32 pct) 249081.33 (0.80 pct)
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Copy: 345396.19 (0.00 pct) 343675.74 (-0.49 pct) 346990.96 (0.46 pct) 334677.55 (-3.10 pct)
>> Scale: 241521.63 (0.00 pct) 231494.70 (-4.15 pct) 236233.18 (-2.18 pct) 229159.01 (-5.11 pct)
>> Add: 261157.86 (0.00 pct) 249663.86 (-4.40 pct) 253402.85 (-2.96 pct) 242257.98 (-7.23 pct)
>> Triad: 267804.99 (0.00 pct) 263071.00 (-1.76 pct) 264208.15 (-1.34 pct) 256978.50 (-4.04 pct)
>
> Again, the NPS4 reults are weird.
NPS4 numbers are more or less within the run to run variation window.
I think the couple of drops for SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT is just a bad run.
Will rerun.
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~ netperf ~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> o NPS1
>>
>> tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1-clients: 102839.97 (0.00 pct) 103540.33 (0.68 pct) 103769.74 (0.90 pct) 103271.77 (0.41 pct)
>> 2-clients: 98428.08 (0.00 pct) 100431.67 (2.03 pct) 100555.62 (2.16 pct) 100417.11 (2.02 pct)
>> 4-clients: 92298.45 (0.00 pct) 94800.51 (2.71 pct) 93706.09 (1.52 pct) 94981.10 (2.90 pct)
>> 8-clients: 85618.41 (0.00 pct) 89130.14 (4.10 pct) 87677.84 (2.40 pct) 88284.61 (3.11 pct)
>> 16-clients: 78722.18 (0.00 pct) 79715.38 (1.26 pct) 80488.76 (2.24 pct) 78980.88 (0.32 pct)
>> 32-clients: 73610.75 (0.00 pct) 72801.41 (-1.09 pct) 72167.43 (-1.96 pct) 75077.55 (1.99 pct)
>> 64-clients: 55285.07 (0.00 pct) 56184.38 (1.62 pct) 56443.79 (2.09 pct) 60689.05 (9.77 pct)
>> 128-clients: 31176.92 (0.00 pct) 32830.06 (5.30 pct) 35511.93 (13.90 pct) 35638.50 (14.31 pct)
>> 256-clients: 20011.44 (0.00 pct) 15135.39 (-24.36 pct) 17599.21 (-12.05 pct) 18219.29 (-8.95 pct)
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1-clients: 103105.55 (0.00 pct) 101582.75 (-1.47 pct) 103077.22 (-0.02 pct) 102233.63 (-0.84 pct)
>> 2-clients: 98720.29 (0.00 pct) 98537.46 (-0.18 pct) 100761.54 (2.06 pct) 99211.39 (0.49 pct)
>> 4-clients: 92289.39 (0.00 pct) 94332.45 (2.21 pct) 93622.46 (1.44 pct) 93321.77 (1.11 pct)
>> 8-clients: 84998.63 (0.00 pct) 87180.90 (2.56 pct) 86970.84 (2.32 pct) 86076.75 (1.26 pct)
>> 16-clients: 76395.81 (0.00 pct) 80017.06 (4.74 pct) 77937.29 (2.01 pct) 75090.85 (-1.70 pct)
>> 32-clients: 71110.89 (0.00 pct) 69445.86 (-2.34 pct) 69273.81 (-2.58 pct) 66885.99 (-5.94 pct)
>> 64-clients: 49526.21 (0.00 pct) 50004.13 (0.96 pct) 51649.09 (4.28 pct) 51100.52 (3.17 pct)
>> 128-clients: 27917.51 (0.00 pct) 30581.70 (9.54 pct) 31587.40 (13.14 pct) 33477.65 (19.91 pct)
>> 256-clients: 20067.17 (0.00 pct) 26002.42 (29.57 pct) 18681.28 (-6.90 pct) 18144.96 (-9.57 pct)
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1-clients: 102139.49 (0.00 pct) 103578.02 (1.40 pct) 103633.90 (1.46 pct) 101656.07 (-0.47 pct)
>> 2-clients: 98259.53 (0.00 pct) 99336.70 (1.09 pct) 99720.37 (1.48 pct) 98812.86 (0.56 pct)
>> 4-clients: 91576.79 (0.00 pct) 95278.30 (4.04 pct) 93688.37 (2.30 pct) 93848.94 (2.48 pct)
>> 8-clients: 84742.30 (0.00 pct) 89005.65 (5.03 pct) 87703.04 (3.49 pct) 86709.29 (2.32 pct)
>> 16-clients: 79540.75 (0.00 pct) 85478.97 (7.46 pct) 83195.92 (4.59 pct) 81016.24 (1.85 pct)
>> 32-clients: 71166.14 (0.00 pct) 74254.01 (4.33 pct) 72422.76 (1.76 pct) 71391.62 (0.31 pct)
>> 64-clients: 51763.24 (0.00 pct) 52565.56 (1.54 pct) 55159.65 (6.56 pct) 52472.91 (1.37 pct)
>> 128-clients: 27829.29 (0.00 pct) 35774.61 (28.55 pct) 33738.97 (21.23 pct) 34564.10 (24.20 pct)
>> 256-clients: 24185.37 (0.00 pct) 27215.35 (12.52 pct) 17675.87 (-26.91 pct) 24937.66 (3.11 pct)
>
> NPS4 is weird again, but mostly wins.
>
> Based on the NPS1 results I'd say this one goes to TOPO
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~ ycsb-mongodb ~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> o NPS1
>>
>> tip: 131070.33 (var: 2.84%)
>> SIS_NODE: 131070.33 (var: 2.84%) (0.00%)
>> SIS_NODE_LIMIT: 137227.00 (var: 4.97%) (4.69%)
>> SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT: 133529.67 (var: 0.98%) (1.87%)
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> tip: 133693.67 (var: 1.69%)
>> SIS_NODE: 134173.00 (var: 4.07%) (0.35%)
>> SIS_NODE_LIMIT: 134124.67 (var: 2.20%) (0.32%)
>> SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT: 133747.33 (var: 2.49%) (0.04%)
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> tip: 132913.67 (var: 1.97%)
>> SIS_NODE: 133697.33 (var: 1.69%) (0.58%)
>> SIS_NODE_LIMIT: 133307.33 (var: 1.03%) (0.29%)
>> SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT: 133426.67 (var: 3.60%) (0.38%)
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~ unixbench ~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> o NPS1
>>
>> kernel tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-1 41322625.19 ( 0.00%) 41224388.33 ( -0.24%) 41142898.66 ( -0.43%) 41222168.97 ( -0.24%)
>> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-512 6252491108.60 ( 0.00%) 6240160851.68 ( -0.20%) 6262714194.10 ( 0.16%) 6259553403.67 ( 0.11%)
>> Amean unixbench-syscall-1 2501398.27 ( 0.00%) 2577323.43 * -3.04%* 2498697.20 ( 0.11%) 2541279.77 * -1.59%*
>> Amean unixbench-syscall-512 8120524.00 ( 0.00%) 7512955.87 * 7.48%* 7447849.67 * 8.28%* 7477129.17 * 7.92%*
>> Hmean unixbench-pipe-1 2359346.02 ( 0.00%) 2392308.62 * 1.40%* 2407625.04 * 2.05%* 2334146.94 * -1.07%*
>> Hmean unixbench-pipe-512 338790322.61 ( 0.00%) 337711432.92 ( -0.32%) 340399941.24 ( 0.48%) 339008490.26 ( 0.06%)
>> Hmean unixbench-spawn-1 4261.52 ( 0.00%) 4164.90 ( -2.27%) 4929.26 * 15.67%* 5111.16 * 19.94%*
>> Hmean unixbench-spawn-512 64328.93 ( 0.00%) 62257.64 * -3.22%* 63740.04 * -0.92%* 63291.18 * -1.61%*
>> Hmean unixbench-execl-1 3677.73 ( 0.00%) 3652.08 ( -0.70%) 3642.56 * -0.96%* 3671.98 ( -0.16%)
>> Hmean unixbench-execl-512 11984.83 ( 0.00%) 13585.65 * 13.36%* 12496.80 ( 4.27%) 12306.01 ( 2.68%)
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> kernel tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-1 41311787.29 ( 0.00%) 41412946.27 ( 0.24%) 41035150.98 ( -0.67%) 41371003.93 ( 0.14%)
>> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-512 6243873272.76 ( 0.00%) 6256893083.32 ( 0.21%) 6236751880.89 ( -0.11%) 6235047089.83 ( -0.14%)
>> Amean unixbench-syscall-1 2503190.70 ( 0.00%) 2576854.30 * -2.94%* 2496464.80 * 0.27%* 2540298.77 * -1.48%*
>> Amean unixbench-syscall-512 8012388.13 ( 0.00%) 7503196.87 * 6.36%* 7493284.60 * 6.48%* 7495117.73 * 6.46%*
>> Hmean unixbench-pipe-1 2340486.25 ( 0.00%) 2388946.63 ( 2.07%) 2412344.33 * 3.07%* 2360277.30 ( 0.85%)
>> Hmean unixbench-pipe-512 338965319.79 ( 0.00%) 337225630.07 ( -0.51%) 339053027.04 ( 0.03%) 336939353.18 * -0.60%*
>> Hmean unixbench-spawn-1 5241.83 ( 0.00%) 5246.00 ( 0.08%) 4718.45 * -9.98%* 4967.96 * -5.22%*
>> Hmean unixbench-spawn-512 65799.86 ( 0.00%) 64817.15 * -1.49%* 66418.37 ( 0.94%) 66820.63 * 1.55%*
>> Hmean unixbench-execl-1 3670.65 ( 0.00%) 3622.36 * -1.32%* 3661.04 ( -0.26%) 3660.08 ( -0.29%)
>> Hmean unixbench-execl-512 13682.00 ( 0.00%) 13699.90 ( 0.13%) 14103.91 ( 3.08%) 12960.11 ( -5.28%)
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> kernel tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-1 41025577.99 ( 0.00%) 40879469.78 ( -0.36%) 41082700.61 ( 0.14%) 41260407.54 ( 0.57%)
>> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-512 6255568261.91 ( 0.00%) 6258326086.80 ( 0.04%) 6252223940.32 ( -0.05%) 6259088809.43 ( 0.06%)
>> Amean unixbench-syscall-1 2507165.37 ( 0.00%) 2579108.77 * -2.87%* 2488617.40 * 0.74%* 2517574.40 ( -0.42%)
>> Amean unixbench-syscall-512 7458476.50 ( 0.00%) 7502528.67 * -0.59%* 7978379.53 * -6.97%* 7580369.27 * -1.63%*
>> Hmean unixbench-pipe-1 2369301.21 ( 0.00%) 2392905.29 * 1.00%* 2410432.93 * 1.74%* 2347814.20 ( -0.91%)
>> Hmean unixbench-pipe-512 340299405.72 ( 0.00%) 339139980.01 * -0.34%* 340403992.95 ( 0.03%) 338708678.82 * -0.47%*
>> Hmean unixbench-spawn-1 5571.78 ( 0.00%) 5423.03 ( -2.67%) 5462.82 ( -1.96%) 5543.08 ( -0.52%)
>> Hmean unixbench-spawn-512 63999.96 ( 0.00%) 63485.41 ( -0.80%) 64730.98 * 1.14%* 67486.34 * 5.45%*
>> Hmean unixbench-execl-1 3587.15 ( 0.00%) 3624.44 * 1.04%* 3638.74 * 1.44%* 3639.57 * 1.46%*
>> Hmean unixbench-execl-512 14184.17 ( 0.00%) 13784.17 ( -2.82%) 13104.71 * -7.61%* 13598.22 ( -4.13%)
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~ DeathStarBench ~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> o NPS1
>> CCD Scaling tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1 1 0% 0.30% 0.83% 0.79%
>> 1 1 0% 0.17% 2.53% 0.91%
>> 1 1 0% -0.40% 2.90% 1.61%
>> 1 1 0% -7.95% 1.19% -1.56%
>>
>> o NPS2
>>
>> CCD Scaling tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1 1 0% 0.34% -0.73% -0.62%
>> 1 1 0% -0.02% 0.14% -1.15%
>> 1 1 0% -12.34% -9.64% -7.80%
>> 1 1 0% -12.41% -1.03% -9.85%
>>
>> Note: In NPS2, 8 CCD case shows 10% run to run variation.
>>
>> o NPS4
>>
>> CCD Scaling tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
>> 1 1 0% -1.32% -0.71% -1.09%
>> 1 1 0% -1.53% -1.11% -1.73%
>> 1 1 0% 7.19% -3.47% 5.75%
>> 1 1 0% -4.66% -1.91% -7.52%
>
> LIMIT seems to do well for the NPS1 case, but how come it falls apart
> for NPS2 ?!? that doesn't realy make sense, does it?
>
> And again NPS4 is all over the place :/
Yup! I'm doing a full rerun for SIS_NODE_LIMIT.
>
>>
>> --
>> If you would like me to collect any more information during any of the
>> above benchmark runs, please let me know.
>
> dizzy with numbers ....
>
> Perhaps see if you can figure out why NPS4 is so weird, there's only 2
> CCXs to go around per node on that thing, the various results should not
> be all over the map.
>
> Perhaps pick hackbenc since it shows the problem and is easy and quick
> to run?
I've ran hackbench on NPS2 and the results from SIS_NODE_LIMIT_RE is
similar to SIS_NODE.
Test: tip SIS_NODE SIS_NODE_LIMIT SIS_NODE_LIMIT_RE SIS_NODE_TOPOEXT
1-groups: 3.82 (0.00 pct) 3.68 (3.66 pct) 3.87 (-1.30 pct) 3.80 (0.52 pct) 3.74 (2.09 pct)
2-groups: 4.40 (0.00 pct) 3.61 (17.95 pct) 4.45 (-1.13 pct) 3.90 (11.36 pct) 4.30 (2.27 pct)
4-groups: 4.84 (0.00 pct) 3.62 (25.20 pct) 4.84 (0.00 pct) 4.11 (15.08 pct) 4.97 (-2.68 pct)
8-groups: 5.45 (0.00 pct) 6.14 (-12.66 pct) 5.40 (0.91 pct) 6.15 (-12.84 pct) 5.68 (-4.22 pct)
16-groups: 6.94 (0.00 pct) 8.77 (-26.36 pct) 6.57 (5.33 pct) 9.51 (-37.03 pct) 7.87 (-13.40 pct)
Since I've messed something up for SIS_NODE_LIMIT I'll give it a full
rerun.
>
> Also, can you share the TOPOEXT code?
Here you go. It is not pretty and assigning the mmc_id is a hack.
Below diff should apply cleanly on top of commit e2a1f85bf9f5
("sched/psi: Avoid resetting the min update period when it is
unnecessary") with the SIS_NODE patch.
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
index 4e91054c84be..cca5d147d8e1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
@@ -16,8 +16,10 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_core_map);
DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_die_map);
/* cpus sharing the last level cache: */
DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_llc_shared_map);
+DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_mc_shared_map);
DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_l2c_shared_map);
DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u16, cpu_llc_id);
+DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u16, cpu_mc_id);
DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u16, cpu_l2c_id);
DECLARE_EARLY_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u16, x86_cpu_to_apicid);
@@ -166,6 +168,11 @@ static inline struct cpumask *cpu_llc_shared_mask(int cpu)
return per_cpu(cpu_llc_shared_map, cpu);
}
+static inline struct cpumask *cpu_mc_shared_mask(int cpu)
+{
+ return per_cpu(cpu_mc_shared_map, cpu);
+}
+
static inline struct cpumask *cpu_l2c_shared_mask(int cpu)
{
return per_cpu(cpu_l2c_shared_map, cpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
index 458c891a8273..b3519d2d0b56 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static inline void setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) { }
#include <asm-generic/topology.h>
+extern const struct cpumask *cpu_mcgroup_mask(int cpu);
extern const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu);
extern const struct cpumask *cpu_clustergroup_mask(int cpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
index 4063e8991211..f6e3be6f2512 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
/* Shared last level cache maps */
DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_llc_shared_map);
+DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_mc_shared_map);
/* Shared L2 cache maps */
DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_l2c_shared_map);
@@ -677,6 +678,7 @@ void cacheinfo_amd_init_llc_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int cpu)
* Core complex ID is ApicId[3] for these processors.
*/
per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, cpu) = c->apicid >> 3;
+ per_cpu(cpu_mc_id, cpu) = c->apicid >> 4;
} else {
/*
* LLC ID is calculated from the number of threads sharing the
@@ -693,6 +695,7 @@ void cacheinfo_amd_init_llc_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int cpu)
int bits = get_count_order(num_sharing_cache);
per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, cpu) = c->apicid >> bits;
+ per_cpu(cpu_mc_id, cpu) = (c->apicid >> bits) >> 1;
}
}
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index 80710a68ef7d..a320516bf767 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_num_siblings);
/* Last level cache ID of each logical CPU */
DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u16, cpu_llc_id) = BAD_APICID;
+DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u16, cpu_mc_id) = BAD_APICID;
u16 get_llc_id(unsigned int cpu)
{
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 28fcd292f5fd..dedf86b9e8cb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -536,6 +536,23 @@ static bool match_llc(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
return topology_sane(c, o, "llc");
}
+static bool match_mc(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
+{
+ int cpu1 = c->cpu_index, cpu2 = o->cpu_index;
+
+ /*
+ * Do not match if we do not have a valid APICID for cpu.
+ * TODO: For non AMD processors, return topology_same_node(c, o)?
+ */
+ if (per_cpu(cpu_mc_id, cpu1) == BAD_APICID)
+ return false;
+
+ /* Do not match if LLC id does not match: */
+ if (per_cpu(cpu_mc_id, cpu1) != per_cpu(cpu_mc_id, cpu2))
+ return false;
+
+ return topology_sane(c, o, "mmc");
+}
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC)
static inline int x86_sched_itmt_flags(void)
@@ -570,7 +587,7 @@ static int x86_cluster_flags(void)
*/
static bool x86_has_numa_in_package;
-static struct sched_domain_topology_level x86_topology[6];
+static struct sched_domain_topology_level x86_topology[7];
static void __init build_sched_topology(void)
{
@@ -596,6 +613,16 @@ static void __init build_sched_topology(void)
cpu_coregroup_mask, x86_core_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(MC)
};
#endif
+
+ /*
+ * Multi-Multi-Core Domain Experimentation
+ */
+ if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ZEN)) {
+ x86_topology[i++] = (struct sched_domain_topology_level){
+ cpu_mcgroup_mask, SD_INIT_NAME(MMC)
+ };
+ }
+
/*
* When there is NUMA topology inside the package skip the DIE domain
* since the NUMA domains will auto-magically create the right spanning
@@ -628,6 +655,7 @@ void set_cpu_sibling_map(int cpu)
if (!has_mp) {
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu));
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu));
+ cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_mc_shared_mask(cpu));
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_l2c_shared_mask(cpu));
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_core_cpumask(cpu));
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_die_cpumask(cpu));
@@ -647,6 +675,9 @@ void set_cpu_sibling_map(int cpu)
if ((i == cpu) || (has_mp && match_llc(c, o)))
link_mask(cpu_llc_shared_mask, cpu, i);
+ if ((i == cpu) || (has_mp && match_mc(c, o)))
+ link_mask(cpu_mc_shared_mask, cpu, i);
+
if ((i == cpu) || (has_mp && match_l2c(c, o)))
link_mask(cpu_l2c_shared_mask, cpu, i);
@@ -700,6 +731,12 @@ const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
return cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu);
}
+/* maps the cpu to the sched domain representing multi-multi-core */
+const struct cpumask *cpu_mcgroup_mask(int cpu)
+{
+ return cpu_mc_shared_mask(cpu);
+}
+
const struct cpumask *cpu_clustergroup_mask(int cpu)
{
return cpu_l2c_shared_mask(cpu);
@@ -1393,6 +1430,7 @@ void __init smp_prepare_cpus_common(void)
zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_core_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_die_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
+ zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_mc_shared_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_llc_shared_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
zalloc_cpumask_var(&per_cpu(cpu_l2c_shared_map, i), GFP_KERNEL);
}
@@ -1626,9 +1664,12 @@ static void remove_siblinginfo(int cpu)
for_each_cpu(sibling, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu))
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(sibling));
+ for_each_cpu(sibling, cpu_mc_shared_mask(cpu))
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpu_mc_shared_mask(sibling));
for_each_cpu(sibling, cpu_l2c_shared_mask(cpu))
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpu_l2c_shared_mask(sibling));
cpumask_clear(cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu));
+ cpumask_clear(cpu_mc_shared_mask(cpu));
cpumask_clear(cpu_l2c_shared_mask(cpu));
cpumask_clear(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu));
cpumask_clear(topology_core_cpumask(cpu));
--
I'll share the data from the reruns of SIS_NODE_LIMIT soon. In the
meantime, if there is anything you would like more data on, please do let
me know.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists