Message-ID: <f147f731-95e0-b0b9-9530-7028e6743146@efficios.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2023 08:46:42 -0400
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Swapnil Sapkal <Swapnil.Sapkal@....com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] sched: Introduce cpus_share_l2c

On 9/5/23 03:21, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:45:28PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 07:19:45PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 09:51:19AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/23 02:49, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:40:45AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> - task migrations dropped with this series for nr_group=20 and 32
>>>>>>>      according to 'perf stat'. migration number didn't drop for nr_group=10
>>>>>>>      but the two update functions' cost dropped which means fewer access to
>>>>>>>      tg->load_avg and thus, fewer task migrations. This is contradictory
>>>>>>>      and I can not explain yet;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither can I.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not clear to me why this series can reduce task migrations. I doubt
>>>>>>> it has something to do with more wakelist style wakeup becasue for this
>>>>>>> test machine, only a single core with two SMT threads share L2 so more
>>>>>>> wakeups are through wakelist. In wakelist style wakeup, the target rq's
>>>>>>> ttwu_pending is set and that will make the target cpu as !idle_cpu();
>>>>>>> This is faster than grabbing the target rq's lock and then increase
>>>>>>> target rq's nr_running or set target rq's curr to something else than
>>>>>>> idle. So wakelist style wakeup can make target cpu appear as non idle
>>>>>>> faster, but I can't connect this with reduced migration yet, I just feel
>>>>>>> this might be the reason why task migration reduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I've tried adding checks for rq->ttwu_pending in those code paths on top of
>>>>>> my patch and I'm still observing the reduction in number of migrations, so
>>>>>> it's unclear to me how doing more queued wakeups can reduce migrations the
>>>>>> way it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting puzzle.
>>>>
>>>> One metric that can help understand the impact of my patch: comparing
>>>> hackbench from a baseline where only your load_avg patch is applied
>>>> to a kernel with my l2c patch applied, I notice that the goidle
>>>> schedstat is cut in half. For a given CPU (they are pretty much alike),
>>>> it goes from 650456 to 353487.
>>>>
>>>> So could it be that by doing queued wakeups, we end up batching
>>>> execution of the woken up tasks for a given CPU, rather than going
>>>> back and forth between idle and non-idle ? One important thing that
>>>> this changes is to reduce the number of newidle balance triggered.
>>>
>>> I noticed the majority(>99%) migrations are from wakeup path on this
>>> Intel SPR when running hackbench: ttwu() -> set_task_cpu() ->
>>> migrate_task_rq_fair(), so while I think it's a good finding that
>>> newidle balance dropped, it's probably not the reason why migration
>>> number dropped...
>>
>> I profiled select_idle_sibling() and found that with this series,
>> select_idle_cpu() tends to fail more and select_idle_sibling() fallbacks
>> to use target in the end, which equals to prev_cpu very often.
>>
>> Initially I think the reason why select_idle_cpu() failed more with this
>> series is because "wake_list style enqueue" can make the target cpu appear
>> as busy earlier and thus, it will be harder for select_idle_cpu() to
>> find an idle cpu overall. But I also suspect SIS_UTIL makes a difference
>> here: in vanilla kernel, the idle% is 8% and with this series, the idle%
>> is only 2% and SIS_UTIL may simply skip doing any search for idle cpu.
>> Anyway, I think I'll also need to profile select_idle_cpu() to see
>> what's going on there too.
> 
> Looks like the reduction in task migration is due to SIS_UTIL, i.e.
> select_idle_cpu() aborts a lot more after applying this series because
> system utilization increased.
> 
> Here are some numbers:
>                   @sis       @sic     @migrate_idle_cpu  @abort
> vanilla:       24640640   15883958     11913588          4148649
> this_series:   22345434   18597564      4294995         14319284
> 
> note:
> - @sis: number of times select_idle_sibling() called;
> - @sic: number of times select_idle_cpu() called;
> - @migrate_idle_cpu: number of times task migrated due to
>    select_idle_cpu() found an idle cpu that is different from prev_cpu;
> - @abort: number of times select_idle_cpu() aborts the search due to
>    SIS_UTIL.
> 
> All numbers are captured during a 5s window while running the below
> workload on a 2 sockets Intel SPR(56 cores, 112 threads per socket):
> hackbench -g 20 -f 20 --pipe --threads -l 480000 -s 100
> 
> So for this workload, I think this series is doing something good: it
> increased system utilization and due to SIS_UTIL, it also reduced task
> migration where task migration isn't very useful since system is already
> overloaded.

This is interesting. Did you also profile the impact of the patches on 
wake_affine(), especially wake_affine_idle() ? Its behavior did change 
very significantly in my tests, and this impacts the target cpu number 
received by select_idle_sibling(). But independently of what 
wake_affine() returns as target (waker cpu or prev_cpu), if 
select_idle_cpu() is trigger-happy and finds idle cores near that 
target, this will cause lots of migrations.

Based on your metrics, the ttwu-queued-l2 approach (in addition to 
reduce lock contention) appear to decrease the SIS_UTIL idleless level 
of the cpus enough to completely change the runqueue selection and 
migration behavior.

I fear that we hide a bad scheduler behavior under the rug by changing 
the idleless level of a specific workload pattern, while leaving the 
underlying root cause unfixed.

I'm currently working on a different approach: rate limit migrations. 
Basically, the idea is to detect when a task is migrated too often for 
its own good, and prevent the scheduler from migrating it for a short 
while. I get about 30% performance improvement with this approach as 
well (limit migration to 1 per 2ms window per task). I'll finish 
polishing my commit messages and send a series as RFC soon.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists