Message-ID: <da06ea9d-5081-b81f-5d2b-28200527f419@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 15:10:29 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
cc: fenghua.yu@...el.com, shuah@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, 
    peternewman@...gle.com, babu.moger@....com, 
    Maciej Wieczór-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>, 
    linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] selftests/resctrl: Ensure measurements skip
 initialization of default benchmark

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 9/4/24 4:57 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > On 8/30/24 3:56 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:

> > > > > @@ -699,111 +639,80 @@ int resctrl_val(const struct resctrl_test
> > > > > *test,
> > > > >    		return ret;
> > > > >    	}
> > > > >    -	/*
> > > > > -	 * If benchmark wasn't successfully started by child, then
> > > > > child
> > > > > should
> > > > > -	 * kill parent, so save parent's pid
> > > > > -	 */
> > > > >    	ppid = getpid();
> > > > >    -	if (pipe(pipefd)) {
> > > > > -		ksft_perror("Unable to create pipe");
> > > > > +	/* Taskset test to specified CPU. */
> > > > > +	ret = taskset_benchmark(ppid, uparams->cpu, &old_affinity);
> > > > 
> > > > Previously only CPU affinity for bm_pid was set but now it's set before
> > > > fork(). Quickly checking the Internet, it seems that CPU affinity gets
> > > > inherited on fork() so now both processes will have the same affinity
> > > > which might make the other process to interfere with the measurement.
> > > 
> > > Setting the affinity is intended to ensure that the buffer preparation
> > > occurs in the same topology as where the runtime portion will run.
> > > This preparation is done before the work to be measured starts.
> > > 
> > > This does tie in with the association with the resctrl group and I
> > > will elaborate more below ...
> > 
> > Okay, that's useful to retain but thinking this further, now we're also
> > going do non-trivial amount of work in between the setup and the test by
> 
> Could you please elaborate how the amount of work during setup can be an
> issue? I have been focused on the measurements that are done afterwards
> that do have clear boundaries from what I can tell.

Well, you used it as a justification: "Setting the affinity is intended 
to ensure that the buffer preparation occurs in the same topology as where 
the runtime portion will run." So I assumed you had some expectations about 
"preparations" done outside of those "clear boundaries" but now you seem
to take entirely opposite stance?

fork() quite heavy operation as it has to copy various things including 
the address space which you just made to contain a huge mem blob. :-)

BTW, perhaps we could use some lighter weighted fork variant in the 
resctrl selftests, the processes don't really need to be that separated 
to justify using full fork() (and custom benchmarks will do execvp()).

> > forking. I guess that doesn't matter for memflush = true case but might be
> > meaningful for the memflush = false case that seems to be there to allow
> > keeping caches hot (I personally haven't thought how to use "caches hot"
> > test but we do have that capability by the fact that memflush paremeter
> > exists).
> 
> I believe that memflush = true will always be needed/used by the tests
> relying on memory bandwidth measurement since that reduces cache hits during
> measurement phase and avoids the additional guessing on how long the workload
> should be run before reliable/consistent measurements can start.
>
> Thinking about the memflush = false case I now think that we should use that
> for the CMT test. The buffer is allocated and initialized while the task
> is configured with appropriate allocation limits so there should not be a
> reason to flush the buffer from the cache. In fact, flushing the cache
> introduces
> the requirement to guess the workload's "settle" time (time to allocate the
> buffer
> into the cache again) before its occupancy can be measured. As a quick test I
> set memflush = false on one system and it brought down the average diff
> between
> the cache portion size and the occupancy counts. I'll try it out on a few more
> systems to confirm.

Oh great!

I've not really figured out the logic used in the old CMT test because 
there was the rewrite for it in the series I started to upstream some of 
these improvements from. But I was unable to rebase successfully that 
rewrite either because somebody had used a non-publically available tree 
as a basis for it so I never did even have time to understand what even 
the rewritten test did thanks to the very complex diff.

> > > > Neither behavior, however, seems to result in the intended behavior as
> > > > we
> > > > either get interfering processes (if inherited) or no desired resctrl
> > > > setup for the benchmark process.
> > > 
> > > There are two processes to consider in the resource group, the parent
> > > (that
> > > sets up the buffer and does the measurements) and the child (that runs the
> > > workload to be measured). Thanks to your commit da50de0a92f3
> > > ("selftests/resctrl:
> > > Calculate resctrl FS derived mem bw over sleep(1) only") the parent
> > > will be sleeping while the child runs its workload and there is no
> > > other interference I am aware of. The only additional measurements
> > > that I can see would be the work needed to actually start and stop the
> > > measurements and from what I can tell this falls into the noise.
> > > 
> > > Please do keep in mind that the performance counters used, iMC, cannot
> > > actually
> > > be bound to a single CPU since it is a per-socket PMU. The measurements
> > > have
> > > thus never been as fine grained as the code pretends it to be.
> > 
> > I was thinking if I should note the amount of work is small. Maybe it's
> > fine to leave that noise there and I'm just overly cautious :-), when I
> > used to do networking research in the past life, I wanted to eliminate as
> > much noise sources so I guess it comes from that background.
> 
> The goal of these tests are to verify *resctrl*, these are not intended to be
> hardware validation tests. I think it would be better for resctrl if more time
> is spent on functional tests of resctrl than these performance tests.

This sounds so easy... (no offence) :-) If only there wouldn't be the 
black boxes and we'd have good and fine-grained ways to instrument it,
it would be so much easier to realize non-statistical means to do 
functional tests.

-- 
 i.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists