2022-02-03 18:21:46

by Mel Gorman

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs

Commit 7d2b5dd0bcc4 ("sched/numa: Allow a floating imbalance between NUMA
nodes") allowed an imbalance between NUMA nodes such that communicating
tasks would not be pulled apart by the load balancer. This works fine when
there is a 1:1 relationship between LLC and node but can be suboptimal
for multiple LLCs if independent tasks prematurely use CPUs sharing cache.

Zen* has multiple LLCs per node with local memory channels and due to
the allowed imbalance, it's far harder to tune some workloads to run
optimally than it is on hardware that has 1 LLC per node. This patch
allows an imbalance to exist up to the point where LLCs should be balanced
between nodes.

On a Zen3 machine running STREAM parallelised with OMP to have on instance
per LLC the results and without binding, the results are

5.17.0-rc0 5.17.0-rc0
vanilla sched-numaimb-v5
MB/sec copy-16 162596.94 ( 0.00%) 501967.12 ( 208.72%)
MB/sec scale-16 136901.28 ( 0.00%) 376531.50 ( 175.04%)
MB/sec add-16 157300.70 ( 0.00%) 569997.42 ( 262.36%)
MB/sec triad-16 151446.88 ( 0.00%) 553204.54 ( 265.28%)

STREAM can use directives to force the spread if the OpenMP is new
enough but that doesn't help if an application uses threads and
it's not known in advance how many threads will be created.

Coremark is a CPU and cache intensive benchmark parallelised with
threads. When running with 1 thread per core, the vanilla kernel
allows threads to contend on cache. With the patch;

5.17.0-rc0 5.17.0-rc0
vanilla sched-numaimb-v5
Min Score-16 368239.36 ( 0.00%) 400876.92 ( 8.86%)
Hmean Score-16 388607.33 ( 0.00%) 441447.30 * 13.60%*
Max Score-16 408945.69 ( 0.00%) 478826.87 ( 17.09%)
Stddev Score-16 15247.04 ( 0.00%) 34061.76 (-123.40%)
CoeffVar Score-16 3.92 ( 0.00%) 7.67 ( -95.82%)

It can also make a big difference for semi-realistic workloads
like specjbb which can execute arbitrary numbers of threads without
advance knowledge of how they should be placed

5.17.0-rc0 5.17.0-rc0
vanilla sched-numaimb-v5
Hmean tput-1 71631.55 ( 0.00%) 70383.46 ( -1.74%)
Hmean tput-8 582758.78 ( 0.00%) 607290.89 * 4.21%*
Hmean tput-16 1020372.75 ( 0.00%) 1031257.25 ( 1.07%)
Hmean tput-24 1416430.67 ( 0.00%) 1587576.33 * 12.08%*
Hmean tput-32 1687702.72 ( 0.00%) 1724207.51 ( 2.16%)
Hmean tput-40 1798094.90 ( 0.00%) 1983053.56 * 10.29%*
Hmean tput-48 1972731.77 ( 0.00%) 2157461.70 ( 9.36%)
Hmean tput-56 2386872.38 ( 0.00%) 2193237.42 ( -8.11%)
Hmean tput-64 2536954.17 ( 0.00%) 2588741.08 ( 2.04%)
Hmean tput-72 2585071.36 ( 0.00%) 2654776.36 ( 2.70%)
Hmean tput-80 2960523.94 ( 0.00%) 2894657.12 ( -2.22%)
Hmean tput-88 3061408.57 ( 0.00%) 2903167.72 ( -5.17%)
Hmean tput-96 3052394.82 ( 0.00%) 2872605.46 ( -5.89%)
Hmean tput-104 2997814.76 ( 0.00%) 3013660.26 ( 0.53%)
Hmean tput-112 2955353.29 ( 0.00%) 3029122.16 ( 2.50%)
Hmean tput-120 2889770.71 ( 0.00%) 2957739.88 ( 2.35%)
Hmean tput-128 2871713.84 ( 0.00%) 2912410.18 ( 1.42%)

In general, the standard deviation figures also are a lot more
stable.

Similarly, for embarassingly parallel problems like NPB-ep, there are
improvements due to better spreading across LLC when the machine is not
fully utilised.

vanilla sched-numaimb-v5r12
Min ep.D 31.79 ( 0.00%) 26.11 ( 17.87%)
Amean ep.D 31.86 ( 0.00%) 26.26 * 17.58%*
Stddev ep.D 0.07 ( 0.00%) 0.18 (-157.54%)
CoeffVar ep.D 0.22 ( 0.00%) 0.69 (-212.46%)
Max ep.D 31.93 ( 0.00%) 26.46 ( 17.13%)

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/sched/topology.h | 1 +
kernel/sched/fair.c | 22 +++++++-------
kernel/sched/topology.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched/topology.h b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
index 8054641c0a7b..56cffe42abbc 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ struct sched_domain {
unsigned int busy_factor; /* less balancing by factor if busy */
unsigned int imbalance_pct; /* No balance until over watermark */
unsigned int cache_nice_tries; /* Leave cache hot tasks for # tries */
+ unsigned int imb_numa_nr; /* Nr running tasks that allows a NUMA imbalance */

int nohz_idle; /* NOHZ IDLE status */
int flags; /* See SD_* */
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 4592ccf82c34..86abf97a8df6 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1489,6 +1489,7 @@ struct task_numa_env {

int src_cpu, src_nid;
int dst_cpu, dst_nid;
+ int imb_numa_nr;

struct numa_stats src_stats, dst_stats;

@@ -1503,7 +1504,7 @@ struct task_numa_env {
static unsigned long cpu_load(struct rq *rq);
static unsigned long cpu_runnable(struct rq *rq);
static inline long adjust_numa_imbalance(int imbalance,
- int dst_running, int dst_weight);
+ int dst_running, int imb_numa_nr);

static inline enum
numa_type numa_classify(unsigned int imbalance_pct,
@@ -1884,7 +1885,7 @@ static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
dst_running = env->dst_stats.nr_running + 1;
imbalance = max(0, dst_running - src_running);
imbalance = adjust_numa_imbalance(imbalance, dst_running,
- env->dst_stats.weight);
+ env->imb_numa_nr);

/* Use idle CPU if there is no imbalance */
if (!imbalance) {
@@ -1949,8 +1950,10 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p)
*/
rcu_read_lock();
sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_numa, env.src_cpu));
- if (sd)
+ if (sd) {
env.imbalance_pct = 100 + (sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
+ env.imb_numa_nr = sd->imb_numa_nr;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();

/*
@@ -9003,10 +9006,9 @@ static bool update_pick_idlest(struct sched_group *idlest,
* This is an approximation as the number of running tasks may not be
* related to the number of busy CPUs due to sched_setaffinity.
*/
-static inline bool
-allow_numa_imbalance(unsigned int running, unsigned int weight)
+static inline bool allow_numa_imbalance(int running, int imb_numa_nr)
{
- return (running < (weight >> 2));
+ return running < imb_numa_nr;
}

/*
@@ -9146,7 +9148,7 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
* allowed. If there is a real need of migration,
* periodic load balance will take care of it.
*/
- if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, local_sgs.group_weight))
+ if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, sd->imb_numa_nr))
return NULL;
}

@@ -9238,9 +9240,9 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
#define NUMA_IMBALANCE_MIN 2

static inline long adjust_numa_imbalance(int imbalance,
- int dst_running, int dst_weight)
+ int dst_running, int imb_numa_nr)
{
- if (!allow_numa_imbalance(dst_running, dst_weight))
+ if (!allow_numa_imbalance(dst_running, imb_numa_nr))
return imbalance;

/*
@@ -9352,7 +9354,7 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
/* Consider allowing a small imbalance between NUMA groups */
if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
env->imbalance = adjust_numa_imbalance(env->imbalance,
- local->sum_nr_running + 1, local->group_weight);
+ local->sum_nr_running + 1, env->sd->imb_numa_nr);
}

return;
diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
index d201a7052a29..e6cd55951304 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
@@ -2242,6 +2242,59 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
}
}

+ /*
+ * Calculate an allowed NUMA imbalance such that LLCs do not get
+ * imbalanced.
+ */
+ for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
+ unsigned int imb = 0;
+ unsigned int imb_span = 1;
+
+ for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
+ struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
+
+ if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) && child &&
+ (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
+ struct sched_domain *top, *top_p;
+ unsigned int nr_llcs;
+
+ /*
+ * For a single LLC per node, allow an
+ * imbalance up to 25% of the node. This is an
+ * arbitrary cutoff based on SMT-2 to balance
+ * between memory bandwidth and avoiding
+ * premature sharing of HT resources and SMT-4
+ * or SMT-8 *may* benefit from a different
+ * cutoff.
+ *
+ * For multiple LLCs, allow an imbalance
+ * until multiple tasks would share an LLC
+ * on one node while LLCs on another node
+ * remain idle.
+ */
+ nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
+ if (nr_llcs == 1)
+ imb = sd->span_weight >> 2;
+ else
+ imb = nr_llcs;
+ sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
+
+ /* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
+ top = sd;
+ top_p = top->parent;
+ while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
+ top = top->parent;
+ top_p = top->parent;
+ }
+ imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;
+ } else {
+ int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
+
+ sd->imb_numa_nr = imb * factor;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
/* Calculate CPU capacity for physical packages and nodes */
for (i = nr_cpumask_bits-1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_map))
--
2.31.1


2022-02-05 08:18:10

by Mel Gorman

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs

On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 08:37:53PM +0530, Nayak, KPrateek (K Prateek) wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 8:16 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -9003,10 +9006,9 @@ static bool update_pick_idlest(struct sched_group *idlest,
> > * This is an approximation as the number of running tasks may not be
> > * related to the number of busy CPUs due to sched_setaffinity.
> > */
> > -static inline bool
> > -allow_numa_imbalance(unsigned int running, unsigned int weight)
> > +static inline bool allow_numa_imbalance(int running, int imb_numa_nr)
> > {
> > - return (running < (weight >> 2));
> > + return running < imb_numa_nr;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -9146,7 +9148,7 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> > * allowed. If there is a real need of migration,
> > * periodic load balance will take care of it.
> > */
> > - if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, local_sgs.group_weight))
> > + if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, sd->imb_numa_nr))
>
> Could you please clarify why are we adding 1 to local_sgs.sum_nr_running while allowing imbalance?

To account for the new task similar to what task_numa_find_cpu before
calling adjust_numa_imbalance.

> allow_numa_imbalance allows the imbalance based on the following inequality:
>
> running < imb_numa_nr
>
> Consider on a Zen3 CPU with 8 LLCs in the sched group of the NUMA domain.
> Assume the group is running 7 task and we are finding the idlest group for the 8th task:
>
> sd->imb_numa_nr = 8
> local_sgs.sum_nr_running = 7
>
> In this case, local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1 is equal to sd->imb_numa_nr and if we allow NUMA imbalance
> and place the task in the same group, each task can be given one LLC.
> However, allow_numa_imbalance returns 0 for the above case and can lead to task being placed on a different
> NUMA group.
>
> In case of Gautham's suggested fix (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/),
> the v4 patch in question (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/)
> used the inequality "<=" to allow NUMA imbalance where we needed to consider the additional load CPU had
> to bear. However that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>

I failed to change < to <= in allow_numa_imbalance, I'll fix and retest.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

2022-02-07 07:57:38

by Srikar Dronamraju

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs

* Mel Gorman <[email protected]> [2022-02-03 14:46:52]:

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index d201a7052a29..e6cd55951304 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -2242,6 +2242,59 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
> }
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Calculate an allowed NUMA imbalance such that LLCs do not get
> + * imbalanced.
> + */

We seem to adding this hunk before the sched_domains may be degenerated.
Wondering if we really want to do it before degeneration.

Let say we have 3 sched domains and we calculated the sd->imb_numa_nr for
all the 3 domains, then lets say the middle sched_domain gets degenerated.
Would the sd->imb_numa_nr's still be relevant?


> + for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
> + unsigned int imb = 0;
> + unsigned int imb_span = 1;
> +
> + for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
> + struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
> +
> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) && child &&
> + (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
> + struct sched_domain *top, *top_p;
> + unsigned int nr_llcs;
> +
> + /*
> + * For a single LLC per node, allow an
> + * imbalance up to 25% of the node. This is an
> + * arbitrary cutoff based on SMT-2 to balance
> + * between memory bandwidth and avoiding
> + * premature sharing of HT resources and SMT-4
> + * or SMT-8 *may* benefit from a different
> + * cutoff.
> + *
> + * For multiple LLCs, allow an imbalance
> + * until multiple tasks would share an LLC
> + * on one node while LLCs on another node
> + * remain idle.
> + */
> + nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
> + if (nr_llcs == 1)
> + imb = sd->span_weight >> 2;
> + else
> + imb = nr_llcs;
> + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
> +
> + /* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
> + top = sd;
> + top_p = top->parent;
> + while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
> + top = top->parent;
> + top_p = top->parent;
> + }
> + imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;

I am getting confused by imb_span.
Let say we have a topology of SMT -> MC -> DIE -> NUMA -> NUMA, with SMT and
MC domains having SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag set.
We come here only for DIE domain.

imb_span set here is being used for both the subsequent sched domains
most likely they will be NUMA domains. Right?

> + } else {
> + int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
> +
> + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb * factor;

For SMT, (or any sched domains below the llcs) factor would be
sd->span_weight but imb_numa_nr and imb would be 0.
For NUMA (or any sched domain just above DIE), factor would be
sd->imb_numa_nr would be nr_llcs.
For subsequent sched_domains, the sd->imb_numa_nr would be some multiple of
nr_llcs. Right?


> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> /* Calculate CPU capacity for physical packages and nodes */
> for (i = nr_cpumask_bits-1; i >= 0; i--) {
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_map))
> --
> 2.31.1
>

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

2022-02-07 13:13:38

by Mel Gorman

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs

On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 12:36:54PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Mel Gorman <[email protected]> [2022-02-03 14:46:52]:
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > index d201a7052a29..e6cd55951304 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > @@ -2242,6 +2242,59 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Calculate an allowed NUMA imbalance such that LLCs do not get
> > + * imbalanced.
> > + */
>
> We seem to adding this hunk before the sched_domains may be degenerated.
> Wondering if we really want to do it before degeneration.
>

There was no obvious advantage versus doing it at the same time
characteristics like groups were being determined.

> Let say we have 3 sched domains and we calculated the sd->imb_numa_nr for
> all the 3 domains, then lets say the middle sched_domain gets degenerated.
> Would the sd->imb_numa_nr's still be relevant?
>

It's expected that it is still relevant as the ratios with respect to
SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES should still be consistent.

>
> > + for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
> > + unsigned int imb = 0;
> > + unsigned int imb_span = 1;
> > +
> > + for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
> > + struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
> > +
> > + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) && child &&
> > + (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
> > + struct sched_domain *top, *top_p;
> > + unsigned int nr_llcs;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For a single LLC per node, allow an
> > + * imbalance up to 25% of the node. This is an
> > + * arbitrary cutoff based on SMT-2 to balance
> > + * between memory bandwidth and avoiding
> > + * premature sharing of HT resources and SMT-4
> > + * or SMT-8 *may* benefit from a different
> > + * cutoff.
> > + *
> > + * For multiple LLCs, allow an imbalance
> > + * until multiple tasks would share an LLC
> > + * on one node while LLCs on another node
> > + * remain idle.
> > + */
> > + nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
> > + if (nr_llcs == 1)
> > + imb = sd->span_weight >> 2;
> > + else
> > + imb = nr_llcs;
> > + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
> > +
> > + /* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
> > + top = sd;
> > + top_p = top->parent;
> > + while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
> > + top = top->parent;
> > + top_p = top->parent;
> > + }
> > + imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;
>
> I am getting confused by imb_span.
> Let say we have a topology of SMT -> MC -> DIE -> NUMA -> NUMA, with SMT and
> MC domains having SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag set.
> We come here only for DIE domain.
>
> imb_span set here is being used for both the subsequent sched domains
> most likely they will be NUMA domains. Right?
>

Right.

> > + } else {
> > + int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
> > +
> > + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb * factor;
>
> For SMT, (or any sched domains below the llcs) factor would be
> sd->span_weight but imb_numa_nr and imb would be 0.

Yes.

> For NUMA (or any sched domain just above DIE), factor would be
> sd->imb_numa_nr would be nr_llcs.
> For subsequent sched_domains, the sd->imb_numa_nr would be some multiple of
> nr_llcs. Right?
>

Right.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

2022-02-07 14:56:10

by K Prateek Nayak

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs

Hello Mel,

On 2/3/2022 8:16 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Commit 7d2b5dd0bcc4 ("sched/numa: Allow a floating imbalance between NUMA
> nodes") allowed an imbalance between NUMA nodes such that communicating
> tasks would not be pulled apart by the load balancer. This works fine when
> there is a 1:1 relationship between LLC and node but can be suboptimal
> for multiple LLCs if independent tasks prematurely use CPUs sharing cache.
>
> Zen* has multiple LLCs per node with local memory channels and due to
> the allowed imbalance, it's far harder to tune some workloads to run
> optimally than it is on hardware that has 1 LLC per node. This patch
> allows an imbalance to exist up to the point where LLCs should be balanced
> between nodes.
>
> On a Zen3 machine running STREAM parallelised with OMP to have on instance
> per LLC the results and without binding, the results are
>
> 5.17.0-rc0 5.17.0-rc0
> vanilla sched-numaimb-v5
> MB/sec copy-16 162596.94 ( 0.00%) 501967.12 ( 208.72%)
> MB/sec scale-16 136901.28 ( 0.00%) 376531.50 ( 175.04%)
> MB/sec add-16 157300.70 ( 0.00%) 569997.42 ( 262.36%)
> MB/sec triad-16 151446.88 ( 0.00%) 553204.54 ( 265.28%)
>
> STREAM can use directives to force the spread if the OpenMP is new
> enough but that doesn't help if an application uses threads and
> it's not known in advance how many threads will be created.
>
> Coremark is a CPU and cache intensive benchmark parallelised with
> threads. When running with 1 thread per core, the vanilla kernel
> allows threads to contend on cache. With the patch;
>
> 5.17.0-rc0 5.17.0-rc0
> vanilla sched-numaimb-v5
> Min Score-16 368239.36 ( 0.00%) 400876.92 ( 8.86%)
> Hmean Score-16 388607.33 ( 0.00%) 441447.30 * 13.60%*
> Max Score-16 408945.69 ( 0.00%) 478826.87 ( 17.09%)
> Stddev Score-16 15247.04 ( 0.00%) 34061.76 (-123.40%)
> CoeffVar Score-16 3.92 ( 0.00%) 7.67 ( -95.82%)
>
> It can also make a big difference for semi-realistic workloads
> like specjbb which can execute arbitrary numbers of threads without
> advance knowledge of how they should be placed
>
> 5.17.0-rc0 5.17.0-rc0
> vanilla sched-numaimb-v5
> Hmean tput-1 71631.55 ( 0.00%) 70383.46 ( -1.74%)
> Hmean tput-8 582758.78 ( 0.00%) 607290.89 * 4.21%*
> Hmean tput-16 1020372.75 ( 0.00%) 1031257.25 ( 1.07%)
> Hmean tput-24 1416430.67 ( 0.00%) 1587576.33 * 12.08%*
> Hmean tput-32 1687702.72 ( 0.00%) 1724207.51 ( 2.16%)
> Hmean tput-40 1798094.90 ( 0.00%) 1983053.56 * 10.29%*
> Hmean tput-48 1972731.77 ( 0.00%) 2157461.70 ( 9.36%)
> Hmean tput-56 2386872.38 ( 0.00%) 2193237.42 ( -8.11%)
> Hmean tput-64 2536954.17 ( 0.00%) 2588741.08 ( 2.04%)
> Hmean tput-72 2585071.36 ( 0.00%) 2654776.36 ( 2.70%)
> Hmean tput-80 2960523.94 ( 0.00%) 2894657.12 ( -2.22%)
> Hmean tput-88 3061408.57 ( 0.00%) 2903167.72 ( -5.17%)
> Hmean tput-96 3052394.82 ( 0.00%) 2872605.46 ( -5.89%)
> Hmean tput-104 2997814.76 ( 0.00%) 3013660.26 ( 0.53%)
> Hmean tput-112 2955353.29 ( 0.00%) 3029122.16 ( 2.50%)
> Hmean tput-120 2889770.71 ( 0.00%) 2957739.88 ( 2.35%)
> Hmean tput-128 2871713.84 ( 0.00%) 2912410.18 ( 1.42%)
>
> In general, the standard deviation figures also are a lot more
> stable.
>
> Similarly, for embarassingly parallel problems like NPB-ep, there are
> improvements due to better spreading across LLC when the machine is not
> fully utilised.
>
> vanilla sched-numaimb-v5r12
> Min ep.D 31.79 ( 0.00%) 26.11 ( 17.87%)
> Amean ep.D 31.86 ( 0.00%) 26.26 * 17.58%*
> Stddev ep.D 0.07 ( 0.00%) 0.18 (-157.54%)
> CoeffVar ep.D 0.22 ( 0.00%) 0.69 (-212.46%)
> Max ep.D 31.93 ( 0.00%) 26.46 ( 17.13%)
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/sched/topology.h | 1 +
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 22 +++++++-------
> kernel/sched/topology.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/topology.h b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> index 8054641c0a7b..56cffe42abbc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ struct sched_domain {
> unsigned int busy_factor; /* less balancing by factor if busy */
> unsigned int imbalance_pct; /* No balance until over watermark */
> unsigned int cache_nice_tries; /* Leave cache hot tasks for # tries */
> + unsigned int imb_numa_nr; /* Nr running tasks that allows a NUMA imbalance */
>
> int nohz_idle; /* NOHZ IDLE status */
> int flags; /* See SD_* */
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 4592ccf82c34..86abf97a8df6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1489,6 +1489,7 @@ struct task_numa_env {
>
> int src_cpu, src_nid;
> int dst_cpu, dst_nid;
> + int imb_numa_nr;
>
> struct numa_stats src_stats, dst_stats;
>
> @@ -1503,7 +1504,7 @@ struct task_numa_env {
> static unsigned long cpu_load(struct rq *rq);
> static unsigned long cpu_runnable(struct rq *rq);
> static inline long adjust_numa_imbalance(int imbalance,
> - int dst_running, int dst_weight);
> + int dst_running, int imb_numa_nr);
>
> static inline enum
> numa_type numa_classify(unsigned int imbalance_pct,
> @@ -1884,7 +1885,7 @@ static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
> dst_running = env->dst_stats.nr_running + 1;
> imbalance = max(0, dst_running - src_running);
> imbalance = adjust_numa_imbalance(imbalance, dst_running,
> - env->dst_stats.weight);
> + env->imb_numa_nr);
>
> /* Use idle CPU if there is no imbalance */
> if (!imbalance) {
> @@ -1949,8 +1950,10 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p)
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_numa, env.src_cpu));
> - if (sd)
> + if (sd) {
> env.imbalance_pct = 100 + (sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
> + env.imb_numa_nr = sd->imb_numa_nr;
> + }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> /*
> @@ -9003,10 +9006,9 @@ static bool update_pick_idlest(struct sched_group *idlest,
> * This is an approximation as the number of running tasks may not be
> * related to the number of busy CPUs due to sched_setaffinity.
> */
> -static inline bool
> -allow_numa_imbalance(unsigned int running, unsigned int weight)
> +static inline bool allow_numa_imbalance(int running, int imb_numa_nr)
> {
> - return (running < (weight >> 2));
> + return running < imb_numa_nr;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -9146,7 +9148,7 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> * allowed. If there is a real need of migration,
> * periodic load balance will take care of it.
> */
> - if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, local_sgs.group_weight))
> + if (allow_numa_imbalance(local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, sd->imb_numa_nr))

Could you please clarify why are we adding 1 to local_sgs.sum_nr_running while allowing imbalance?
allow_numa_imbalance allows the imbalance based on the following inequality:

running < imb_numa_nr

Consider on a Zen3 CPU with 8 LLCs in the sched group of the NUMA domain.
Assume the group is running 7 task and we are finding the idlest group for the 8th task:

sd->imb_numa_nr = 8
local_sgs.sum_nr_running = 7

In this case, local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1 is equal to sd->imb_numa_nr and if we allow NUMA imbalance
and place the task in the same group, each task can be given one LLC.
However, allow_numa_imbalance returns 0 for the above case and can lead to task being placed on a different
NUMA group.

In case of Gautham's suggested fix (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/),
the v4 patch in question (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/)
used the inequality "<=" to allow NUMA imbalance where we needed to consider the additional load CPU had
to bear. However that doesn't seem to be the case here.

> return NULL;
> }
>
> @@ -9238,9 +9240,9 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
> #define NUMA_IMBALANCE_MIN 2
>
> static inline long adjust_numa_imbalance(int imbalance,
> - int dst_running, int dst_weight)
> + int dst_running, int imb_numa_nr)
> {
> - if (!allow_numa_imbalance(dst_running, dst_weight))
> + if (!allow_numa_imbalance(dst_running, imb_numa_nr))
> return imbalance;
>
> /*
> @@ -9352,7 +9354,7 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
> /* Consider allowing a small imbalance between NUMA groups */
> if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> env->imbalance = adjust_numa_imbalance(env->imbalance,
> - local->sum_nr_running + 1, local->group_weight);
> + local->sum_nr_running + 1, env->sd->imb_numa_nr);
> }
>
> return;
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index d201a7052a29..e6cd55951304 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -2242,6 +2242,59 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
> }
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Calculate an allowed NUMA imbalance such that LLCs do not get
> + * imbalanced.
> + */
> + for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
> + unsigned int imb = 0;
> + unsigned int imb_span = 1;
> +
> + for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
> + struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
> +
> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) && child &&
> + (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
> + struct sched_domain *top, *top_p;
> + unsigned int nr_llcs;
> +
> + /*
> + * For a single LLC per node, allow an
> + * imbalance up to 25% of the node. This is an
> + * arbitrary cutoff based on SMT-2 to balance
> + * between memory bandwidth and avoiding
> + * premature sharing of HT resources and SMT-4
> + * or SMT-8 *may* benefit from a different
> + * cutoff.
> + *
> + * For multiple LLCs, allow an imbalance
> + * until multiple tasks would share an LLC
> + * on one node while LLCs on another node
> + * remain idle.
> + */

To add to my point above, the comment here says -
"allow an imbalance until multiple tasks would share an LLC on one node"
Whereas, in the case I highlighted above, we see balancing kick in with possibly
one LLC being unaccounted for.

> + nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
> + if (nr_llcs == 1)
> + imb = sd->span_weight >> 2;
> + else
> + imb = nr_llcs;
> + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
> +
> + /* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
> + top = sd;
> + top_p = top->parent;
> + while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
> + top = top->parent;
> + top_p = top->parent;
> + }
> + imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;
> + } else {
> + int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
> +
> + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb * factor;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> /* Calculate CPU capacity for physical packages and nodes */
> for (i = nr_cpumask_bits-1; i >= 0; i--) {
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_map))

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks and Regards
Prateek

2022-02-09 04:56:52

by Gautham R. Shenoy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:43:34AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:

[..snip..]

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index d201a7052a29..e6cd55951304 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -2242,6 +2242,59 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
> }
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Calculate an allowed NUMA imbalance such that LLCs do not get
> + * imbalanced.
> + */
> + for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
> + unsigned int imb = 0;
> + unsigned int imb_span = 1;
> +
> + for (sd = *per_cpu_ptr(d.sd, i); sd; sd = sd->parent) {
> + struct sched_domain *child = sd->child;
> +
> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) && child &&
> + (child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
> + struct sched_domain *top, *top_p;
> + unsigned int nr_llcs;
> +
> + /*
> + * For a single LLC per node, allow an
> + * imbalance up to 25% of the node. This is an
> + * arbitrary cutoff based on SMT-2 to balance
> + * between memory bandwidth and avoiding
> + * premature sharing of HT resources and SMT-4
> + * or SMT-8 *may* benefit from a different
> + * cutoff.
> + *
> + * For multiple LLCs, allow an imbalance
> + * until multiple tasks would share an LLC
> + * on one node while LLCs on another node
> + * remain idle.
> + */
> + nr_llcs = sd->span_weight / child->span_weight;
> + if (nr_llcs == 1)
> + imb = sd->span_weight >> 2;
> + else
> + imb = nr_llcs;
> + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb;
> +
> + /* Set span based on the first NUMA domain. */
> + top = sd;
> + top_p = top->parent;
> + while (top_p && !(top_p->flags & SD_NUMA)) {
> + top = top->parent;
> + top_p = top->parent;
> + }
> + imb_span = top_p ? top_p->span_weight : sd->span_weight;
> + } else {
> + int factor = max(1U, (sd->span_weight / imb_span));
> +
> + sd->imb_numa_nr = imb * factor;
> + }
> + }
> + }


On a 2 Socket Zen3 servers with 64 cores per socket, the imb_numa_nr
works out to be as follows for different Node Per Socket (NPS) modes

NPS = 1:
======
SMT(span = 2) -- > MC (span = 16) --> DIE (span = 128) --> NUMA (span = 256)
Parent of LLC is DIE. nr_llcs = 128/16 = 8. imb = 8.
top_p = NUMA. imb_span = 256.

for NUMA doman, factor = max(1U, 256/256) = 1. Thus sd->imb_numa_nr = 8.



NPS = 2
========
SMT(span=2)--> MC(span=16)--> NODE(span=64)--> NUMA1(span=128)--> NUMA2(span=256)

Parent of LLC = NODE. nr_llcs = 64/16 = 4. imb = 4.
top_p = NUMA1. imb_span = 128.

For NUMA1 domain, factor = 1. sd->imb_numa_nr = 4.
For NUMA2 domain, factor = 2. sd->imb_numa_nr = 8


NPS = 4
========
SMT(span=2)--> MC(span=16)--> NODE(span=32)--> NUMA1(span=128)--> NUMA2(span=256)

Parent of LLC = NODE. nr_llcs = 32/16 = 2. imb = 2.
top_p = NUMA1. imb_span = 128.

For NUMA1 domain, factor = 1. sd->imb_numa_nr = 2.
For NUMA2 domain, factor = 2. sd->imb_numa_nr = 4


The imb_numa_nr looks good for all the NPS modes. Furthermore, running
stream with 16 threads (equal to the number of LLCs in the system)
yields good results on all the NPS modes with this imb_numa_nr.

Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <[email protected]>

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.