[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca5c6d15-7205-45e0-96a9-e78ab2a52b45@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:10:57 -0500
From: Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...cle.com>
To: Cristian Prundeanu <cpru@...zon.com>, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Bjoern Doebel <doebel@...zon.com>,
Hazem Mohamed Abuelfotoh <abuehaze@...zon.com>,
Geoff Blake <blakgeof@...zon.com>, Ali Saidi <alisaidi@...zon.com>,
Csaba Csoma <csabac@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [tip: sched/core] sched: Disable PLACE_LAG and
RUN_TO_PARITY and move them to sysctl
On 10/17/24 01:19, Cristian Prundeanu wrote:
> This patchset disables the scheduler features PLACE_LAG and RUN_TO_PARITY
> and moves them to sysctl.
>
> Replacing CFS with the EEVDF scheduler in kernel 6.6 introduced
> significant performance degradation in multiple database-oriented
> workloads. This degradation manifests in all kernel versions using EEVDF,
> across multiple Linux distributions, hardware architectures (x86_64,
> aarm64, amd64), and CPU generations.
>
> For example, running mysql+hammerdb results in a 12-17% throughput
> reduction and 12-18% latency increase compared to kernel 6.5 (using
> default scheduler settings everywhere). The magnitude of this performance
> impact is comparable to the average performance difference of a CPU
> generation over its predecessor.
>
> Testing combinations of available scheduler features showed that the
> largest improvement (short of disabling all EEVDF features) came from
> disabling both PLACE_LAG and RUN_TO_PARITY:
>
> Kernel | default | NO_PLACE_LAG and
> aarm64 | config | NO_RUN_TO_PARITY
> ---------+----------+-----------------
> 6.5 | baseline | N/A
> 6.6 | -13.2% | -6.8%
> 6.7 | -13.1% | -6.0%
> 6.8 | -12.3% | -6.5%
> 6.9 | -12.7% | -6.9%
> 6.10 | -13.5% | -5.8%
> 6.11 | -12.6% | -5.8%
> 6.12-rc2 | -12.2% | -8.9%
> ---------+----------+-----------------
>
> Kernel | default | NO_PLACE_LAG and
> x86_64 | config | NO_RUN_TO_PARITY
> ---------+----------+-----------------
> 6.5 | baseline | N/A
> 6.6 | -16.8% | -10.8%
> 6.7 | -16.4% | -9.9%
> 6.8 | -17.2% | -9.5%
> 6.9 | -17.4% | -9.7%
> 6.10 | -16.5% | -9.0%
> 6.11 | -15.0% | -8.5%
> 6.12-rc2 | -12.7% | -10.9%
> ---------+----------+-----------------
>
> While the long term approach is debugging and fixing the scheduler
> behavior, algorithm changes to address performance issues of this nature
> are specialized (and likely prolonged or open-ended) research. Until a
> change is identified which fixes the performance degradation, in the
> interest of a better out-of-the-box performance: (1) disable these
> features by default, and (2) expose these values in sysctl instead of
> debugfs, so they can be more easily persisted across reboots.
>
> Cristian Prundeanu (2):
> sched: Disable PLACE_LAG and RUN_TO_PARITY
> sched: Move PLACE_LAG and RUN_TO_PARITY to sysctl
>
> include/linux/sched/sysctl.h | 8 ++++++++
> kernel/sched/core.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 +++--
> kernel/sched/features.h | 10 ----------
> kernel/sysctl.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
Hi Cristian,
This is a confirmation that we are also seeing a 9% performance
regression with the TPCC benchmark after v6.6-rc1. We narrowed down the
regression was caused due to commit:
86bfbb7ce4f6 ("sched/fair: Add lag based placement")
This regression was reported via this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1c447727-92ed-416c-bca1-a7ca0974f0df@oracle.com/
Phil Auld suggested to try turning off the PLACE_LAG sched feature. We
tested with NO_PLACE_LAG and can confirm it brought back 5% of the
performance loss. We do not yet know what effect NO_PLACE_LAG will have
on other benchmarks, but it indeed helps TPCC.
Thanks for the work to move PLACE_LAG and RUN_TO_PARITY to sysctl!
Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists