linux-kernel - Re: [tip:sched/eevdf] [sched/fair] e0c2ff903c: phoronix-test-suite.blogbench.Write.final

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230814124914.GJ776869@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:49:14 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
        lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/eevdf] [sched/fair]  e0c2ff903c:
 phoronix-test-suite.blogbench.Write.final_score -34.8% regression

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 09:11:21AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2023-08-10 at 21:24:37 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > kernel test robot noticed a -34.8% regression of phoronix-test-suite.blogbench.Write.final_score on:
> > 
> > 
> > commit: e0c2ff903c320d3fd3c2c604dc401b3b7c0a1d13 ("sched/fair: Remove sched_feat(START_DEBIT)")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/eevdf
> > 
> > testcase: phoronix-test-suite
> > test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6252 CPU @ 2.10GHz (Cascade Lake) with 512G memory
> > parameters:
> > 
> > 	test: blogbench-1.1.0
> > 	option_a: Write
> > 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> > 

Is this benchmark fork() heavy?

> It seems that commit e0c2ff903c32 removed the sched_feat(START_DEBIT) for initial
> task, but also increases the vruntime for non-initial task:
> Before the e0c2ff903c32, the vruntime for a enqueued task is:
> cfs_rq->min_vruntime
> After the e0c2ff903c32, the vruntime for a enqueued task is:
> avg_vruntime(cfs_rq) = \Sum v_i * w_i / W
>                      = \Sum v_i / nr_tasks
> which is usually higher than cfs_rq->min_vruntime, and we give less sleep bonus to
> the wakee, which could bring more or less impact to different workloads.
> But since later we switched to lag based placement, this new vruntime will minus
> lag, which could mitigate this problem. 

Right.. but given this problem was bisected through the lag based
placement to this commit, I wondered about fork() / pthread_create().

If this is indeed fork()/pthread_create() heavy, could you please see if
disabling PLACE_DEADLINE_INITIAL helps?