Message-ID: <2359ab5-4556-1a73-9255-3fcf2fc57ec@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 17:18:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
    Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, 
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: EEVDF and NUMA balancing



On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 16:00, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 19:20, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2023, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 18:51, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One CPU has 2 threads, and the others have one.  The one with two threads
> > > > > > > > is returned as the busiest one.  But nothing happens, because both of them
> > > > > > > > prefer the socket that they are on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This explains way load_balance uses migrate_util and not migrate_task.
> > > > > > > One CPU with 2 threads can be overloaded
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ok, so it seems that your 1st problem is that you have 2 threads on
> > > > > > > the same CPU whereas you should have an idle core in this numa node.
> > > > > > > All cores are sharing the same LLC, aren't they ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, not following this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Socket 1 has N-1 threads, and thus an idle CPU.
> > > > > > Socket 2 has N+1 threads, and thus one CPU with two threads.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Socket 1 tries to steal from that one CPU with two threads, but that
> > > > > > fails, because both threads prefer being on Socket 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since most (or all?) of the threads on Socket 2 perfer being on Socket 2.
> > > > > > the only hope for Socket 1 to fill in its idle core is active balancing.
> > > > > > But active balancing is not triggered because of migrate_util and because
> > > > > > CPU_NEWLY_IDLE prevents the failure counter from ebing increased.
> > > > >
> > > > >  CPU_NEWLY_IDLE load_balance doesn't aims to do active load balance so
> > > > > you should focus on the CPU_NEWLY_IDLE load_balance
> > > >
> > > > I'm still perplexed why a core that has been idle for 1 second or more is
> > > > considered to be newly idle.
> > >
> > > CPU_NEWLY_IDLE load balance is called when the scheduler was
> > > scheduling something that just migrated or went back to sleep and
> > > doesn't have anything to schedule so it tries to  pull a task from
> > > somewhere else.
> > >
> > > But you should still have some CPU_IDLE load balance according to your
> > > description where one CPU of the socket remains idle and those will
> > > increase the nr_balance_failed
> >
> > This happens.  But not often.
> >
> > > I'm surprised that you have mainly CPU_NEWLY_IDLE. Do you know the reason ?
> >
> > No.  They come from do_idle calling the scheduler.  I will look into why
> > this happens so often.
>
> Hmm, the CPU was idle and received a need resched which triggered the
> scheduler but there was nothing to schedule so it goes back to idle
> after running a newly_idle _load_balance.

I spent quite some time thinking the same until I saw the following code
in do_idle:

preempt_set_need_resched();

So I have the impression that do_idle sets need resched itself.

julia

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The part that I am currently missing to understand is that when I convert
> > > > > > CPU_NEWLY_IDLE to CPU_IDLE, it typically picks a CPU with only one thread
> > > > > > as busiest.  I have the impression that the fbq_type intervenes to cause
> > > > >
> > > > > find_busiest_queue skips rqs which only have threads preferring being
> > > > > in there. So it selects another rq with a thread that doesn't prefer
> > > > > its current node.
> > > > >
> > > > > do you know what is the value of env->fbq_type ?
> > > >
> > > > I have seen one trace in which it is all.  There are 33 tasks on one
> > > > socket, and they are all considered to have a preference for that socket.
> > >
> > > With env->fbq_type == all, load_balance and find_busiest_queue should
> > > be able to select the actual busiest queue with 2 threads.
> >
> > That's what it does.  But nothing can be stolen because there is no active
> > balancing.
>
> My patch below should enable to pull a task from the 1st idle load
> balance that fails
>
> >
> > >
> > > But then I imagine that can_migrate/ migrate_degrades_locality
> > > prevents to detach the task
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > julia
> >
> > > >
> > > > But I have another trace in which it is regular.  There are 33 tasks on
> > > > the socket, but only 32 have a preference.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > need_active_balance() probably needs a new condition for the numa case
> > > > > where the busiest queue can't be selected and we have to trigger an
> > > > > active load_balance on a rq with only 1 thread but that is not running
> > > > > on its preferred node. Something like the untested below :
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > > index e5da5eaab6ce..de1474191488 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > > @@ -11150,6 +11150,24 @@ imbalanced_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> > > > >         return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline bool
> > > > > +numa_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       struct sched_domain *sd = env->sd;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       /*
> > > > > +        * We tried to migrate only a !numa task or a task on wrong node but
> > > > > +        * the busiest queue with such task has only 1 running task. Previous
> > > > > +        * attempt has failed so force the migration of such task.
> > > > > +        */
> > > > > +       if ((env->fbq_type < all) &&
> > > > > +           (env->src_rq->cfs.h_nr_running == 1) &&
> > > > > +           (sd->nr_balance_failed > 0))
> > > >
> > > > The last condition will still be a problem because of CPU_NEWLY_IDLE.  The
> > > > nr_balance_failed counter doesn't get incremented very often.
> > >
> > > It waits for at least 1 failed CPU_IDLE load_balance
> > >
> > > >
> > > > julia
> > > >
> > > > > +               return 1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >         struct sched_domain *sd = env->sd;
> > > > > @@ -11176,6 +11194,9 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> > > > >         if (env->migration_type == migrate_misfit)
> > > > >                 return 1;
> > > > >
> > > > > +       if (numa_active_balance(env))
> > > > > +               return 1;
> > > > > +
> > > > >         return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > it to avoid the CPU with two threads that already prefer Socket 2.  But I
> > > > > > don't know at the moment why that is the case.  In any case, it's fine to
> > > > > > active balance from a CPU with only one thread, because Socket 2 will
> > > > > > even itself out afterwards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You should not have more than 1 thread per CPU when there are N+1
> > > > > > > threads on a node with N cores / 2N CPUs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm, I think there is a miscommunication about cores and CPUs.  The
> > > > > > machine has two sockets with 16 physical cores each, and thus 32
> > > > > > hyperthreads.  There are 64 threads running.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, I have been confused by what you wrote previously:
> > > > > " The context is that there are 2N threads running on 2N cores, one thread
> > > > > gets NUMA balanced to the other socket, leaving N+1 threads on one socket
> > > > > and N-1 threads on the other socket."
> > > > >
> > > > > I have assumed that there were N cores and 2N CPUs per socket as you
> > > > > mentioned Intel Xeon 6130 in the commit message . My previous emails
> > > > > don't apply at all with N CPUs per socket and the group_overloaded is
> > > > > correct.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > julia
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This will enable the
> > > > > > > load_balance to try to migrate a task instead of some util(ization)
> > > > > > > and you should reach the active load balance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In theory you should have the
> > > > > > > > > local "group_has_spare" and the busiest "group_fully_busy" (at most).
> > > > > > > > > This means that no group should be overloaded and load_balance should
> > > > > > > > > not try to migrate utli but only task
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't collect information about the groups.  I will look into that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > julia
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and changing the above test to:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >         if ((env->migration_type == migrate_task || env->migration_type == migrate_util) &&
> > > > > > > > > >             (sd->nr_balance_failed > sd->cache_nice_tries+2))
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > seems to solve the problem.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I will test this on more applications.  But let me know if the above
> > > > > > > > > > solution seems completely inappropriate.  Maybe it violates some other
> > > > > > > > > > constraints.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have no idea why this problem became more visible with EEVDF.  It seems
> > > > > > > > > > to have to do with the time slices all turning out to be the same.  I got
> > > > > > > > > > the same behavior in 6.5 by overwriting the timeslice calculation to
> > > > > > > > > > always return 1.  But I don't see the connection between the timeslice and
> > > > > > > > > > the behavior of the idle task.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > julia
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists