linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] sched/fair: Adjust the busiest group scanning depth in idle load balance

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: <ZO9hrc2KDUOfbQm1@chenyu5-mobl2>
Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2023 23:35:09 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:     Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        "Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] sched/fair: Adjust the busiest group scanning
 depth in idle load balance

On 2023-08-25 at 11:30:05 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/27/23 8:05 PM, Chen Yu wrote:
> > Scanning the whole sched domain to find the busiest group is time costly
> > during newidle_balance(). And if a CPU becomes idle, it would be good
> > if this idle CPU pulls some tasks from other CPUs as quickly as possible.
> > 
> > Limit the scan depth of newidle_balance() to only scan for a limited number
> > of sched groups to find a relatively busy group, and pull from it.
> > In summary, the more spare time there is in the domain, the more time
> > each newidle balance can spend on scanning for a busy group. Although
> > the newidle balance has per domain max_newidle_lb_cost to decide
> > whether to launch the balance or not, the ILB_UTIL provides a smaller
> > granularity to decide how many groups each newidle balance can scan.
> > 
> > The scanning depth is calculated by the previous periodic load balance
> > based on its overall utilization.
> > 
> > Tested on top of v6.5-rc2, Sapphire Rapids with 2 x 56C/112T = 224 CPUs.
> > With cpufreq governor set to performance, and C6 disabled.
> > 
> > Firstly, tested on a extreme synthetic test[1], which launches 224
> > process. Each process is a loop of nanosleep(1 us), which is supposed
> > to trigger newidle balance as much as possible:
> > 
> > i=1;while [ $i -le "224" ]; do ./nano_sleep 1000 & i=$(($i+1)); done;
> > 
> > NO_ILB_UTIL + ILB_SNAPSHOT:
> > 9.38%     0.45%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] newidle_balance
> > 6.84%     5.32%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] update_sd_lb_stats.constprop.0
> > 
> > ILB_UTIL + ILB_SNAPSHOT:
> > 3.35%     0.38%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] newidle_balance
> > 2.30%     1.81%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] update_sd_lb_stats.constprop.0
> > [...]
> 
> > Link: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/chen-yu-surf/tools/master/stress_nanosleep.c #1
> > Suggested-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 6925813db59b..4e360ed16e14 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10195,7 +10195,13 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
> >  	struct sg_lb_stats *local = &sds->local_stat;
> >  	struct sg_lb_stats tmp_sgs;
> >  	unsigned long sum_util = 0;
> > -	int sg_status = 0;
> > +	int sg_status = 0, nr_sg_scan;
> > +	/* only newidle CPU can load the snapshot */
> > +	bool ilb_can_load = env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE &&
> > +			    sd_share && READ_ONCE(sd_share->total_capacity);
> > +
> > +	if (sched_feat(ILB_UTIL) && ilb_can_load)
> 
> Suggestion for small improvement:
> 
> it could be ? This could help save a few cycles of checking if the feature is enabled when its not newidle. 
> 
> 	if ( ilb_can_load && sched_feat(ILB_UTIL)) 
> 
> Same comments below in this patch as well in PATCH 6/7.
>

Yes this makes sense because the feature is enabled by default.
 
> > +		nr_sg_scan = sd_share->nr_sg_scan;
> >  
> >  	do {
> >  		struct sg_lb_stats *sgs = &tmp_sgs;
> > @@ -10222,6 +10228,9 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
> >  			sds->busiest_stat = *sgs;
> >  		}
> >  
> > +		if (sched_feat(ILB_UTIL) && ilb_can_load && --nr_sg_scan <= 0)
> > +			goto load_snapshot;
> > +
> 
> Same comment as above.
> 

OK, will do.

thanks,
Chenyu