Message-ID: <c82d8cb4-97eb-b5c5-36f4-d9477da045aa@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:40:21 +0800
From:   Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        <gautham.shenoy@....com>, <mgorman@...e.de>, <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <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>,
        <kprateek.nayak@....com>, <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
        <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] sched/fair: Use candidate prev/recent_used CPU if
 scanning failed for cluster wakeup

On 2023/10/17 23:23, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 14:55, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 2023/10/13 23:04, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
>>>>
>>>> Chen Yu reports a hackbench regression of cluster wakeup when
>>>> hackbench threads equal to the CPU number [1]. Analysis shows
>>>> it's because we wake up more on the target CPU even if the
>>>> prev_cpu is a good wakeup candidate and leads to the decrease
>>>> of the CPU utilization.
>>>>
>>>> Generally if the task's prev_cpu is idle we'll wake up the task
>>>> on it without scanning. On cluster machines we'll try to wake up
>>>> the task in the same cluster of the target for better cache
>>>> affinity, so if the prev_cpu is idle but not sharing the same
>>>> cluster with the target we'll still try to find an idle CPU within
>>>> the cluster. This will improve the performance at low loads on
>>>> cluster machines. But in the issue above, if the prev_cpu is idle
>>>> but not in the cluster with the target CPU, we'll try to scan an
>>>> idle one in the cluster. But since the system is busy, we're
>>>> likely to fail the scanning and use target instead, even if
>>>> the prev_cpu is idle. Then leads to the regression.
>>>>
>>>> This patch solves this in 2 steps:
>>>> o record the prev_cpu/recent_used_cpu if they're good wakeup
>>>>   candidates but not sharing the cluster with the target.
>>>> o on scanning failure use the prev_cpu/recent_used_cpu if
>>>>   they're still idle
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZGzDLuVaHR1PAYDt@chenyu5-mobl1/
>>>> Reported-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> index 4039f9b348ec..f1d94668bd71 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> @@ -7392,7 +7392,7 @@ 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
>>>> @@ -7425,6 +7425,8 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>>>>
>>>>                 if (cpus_share_resources(prev, target))
>>>>                         return prev;
>>>> +
>>>> +               prev_aff = prev;
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>         /*
>>>> @@ -7457,6 +7459,8 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>>>>
>>>>                 if (cpus_share_resources(recent_used_cpu, target))
>>>>                         return recent_used_cpu;
>>>> +       } else {
>>>> +               recent_used_cpu = -1;
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>         /*
>>>> @@ -7497,6 +7501,19 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>>>>         if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>>>                 return i;
>>>>
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * For cluster machines which have lower sharing cache like L2 or
>>>> +        * LLC Tag, we tend to find an idle CPU in the target's cluster
>>>> +        * first. But prev_cpu or recent_used_cpu may also be a good candidate,
>>>> +        * use them if possible when no idle CPU found in select_idle_cpu().
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       if ((unsigned int)prev_aff < nr_cpumask_bits &&
>>>> +           (available_idle_cpu(prev_aff) || sched_idle_cpu(prev_aff)))
>>>
>>> Hasn't prev_aff (i.e. prev) been already tested as idle ?
>>>
>>>> +               return prev_aff;
>>>> +       if ((unsigned int)recent_used_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits &&
>>>> +           (available_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu)))
>>>> +               return recent_used_cpu;
>>>
>>> same here
>>>
>>
>> It was thought that there maybe a small potential race window here that the prev/recent_used
>> CPU becoming non-idle after scanning, discussed in [1]. I think the check here won't be
>> expensive so added it here. It should be redundant and can be removed.
> 
> I agree that there is a race but the whole function
> select_idle_sibling() is made of possible races because by the time it
> selects a CPU this one can become non-idle. It would be good to have
> some figures showing that these redundant checks make a difference.
> 

Got it. Actually I see no difference for these two checks on my machine. So I would like
to remove this.

Thanks.

>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZIams6s+qShFWhfQ@BLR-5CG11610CF.amd.com/
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>>         return target;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.24.0
>>>>
>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists