Hi Yicong,
Thanks for sending this version!
On 2023-07-19 at 17:28:38 +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> From: Barry Song <[email protected]>
>
> For platforms having clusters like Kunpeng920, CPUs within the same cluster
> have lower latency when synchronizing and accessing shared resources like
> cache. Thus, this patch tries to find an idle cpu within the cluster of the
> target CPU before scanning the whole LLC to gain lower latency. This
> will be implemented in 3 steps in select_idle_sibling():
> 1. When the prev_cpu/recent_used_cpu are good wakeup candidates, use them
> if they're sharing cluster with the target CPU. Otherwise record them
> and do the scanning first.
> 2. Scanning the cluster prior to the LLC of the target CPU for an
> idle CPU to wakeup.
> 3. If no idle CPU found after scanning and the prev_cpu/recent_used_cpu
> can be used, use them.
>
> Testing has been done on Kunpeng920 by pinning tasks to one numa and two
> numa. On Kunpeng920, Each numa has 8 clusters and each cluster has 4 CPUs.
>
> With this patch, We noticed enhancement on tbench and netperf within one
> numa or cross two numa on 6.5-rc1:
> tbench results (node 0):
> baseline patched
> 1: 325.9673 378.9117 ( 16.24%)
> 4: 1311.9667 1501.5033 ( 14.45%)
> 8: 2629.4667 2961.9100 ( 12.64%)
> 16: 5259.1633 5928.0833 ( 12.72%)
> 32: 10368.6333 10566.8667 ( 1.91%)
> 64: 7868.7700 8182.0100 ( 3.98%)
> 128: 6528.5733 6801.8000 ( 4.19%)
> tbench results (node 0-1):
> vanilla patched
> 1: 329.2757 380.8907 ( 15.68%)
> 4: 1327.7900 1494.5300 ( 12.56%)
> 8: 2627.2133 2917.1233 ( 11.03%)
> 16: 5201.3367 5835.9233 ( 12.20%)
> 32: 8811.8500 11154.2000 ( 26.58%)
> 64: 15832.4000 19643.7667 ( 24.07%)
> 128: 12605.5667 14639.5667 ( 16.14%)
> netperf results TCP_RR (node 0):
> baseline patched
> 1: 77302.8667 92172.2100 ( 19.24%)
> 4: 78724.9200 91581.3100 ( 16.33%)
> 8: 79168.1296 91091.7942 ( 15.06%)
> 16: 81079.4200 90546.5225 ( 11.68%)
> 32: 82201.5799 78910.4982 ( -4.00%)
> 64: 29539.3509 29131.4698 ( -1.38%)
> 128: 12082.7522 11956.7705 ( -1.04%)
> netperf results TCP_RR (node 0-1):
> baseline patched
> 1: 78340.5233 92101.8733 ( 17.57%)
> 4: 79644.2483 91326.7517 ( 14.67%)
> 8: 79557.4313 90737.8096 ( 14.05%)
> 16: 79215.5304 90568.4542 ( 14.33%)
> 32: 78999.3983 85460.6044 ( 8.18%)
> 64: 74198.9494 74325.4361 ( 0.17%)
> 128: 27397.4810 27757.5471 ( 1.31%)
> netperf results UDP_RR (node 0):
> baseline patched
> 1: 95721.9367 111546.1367 ( 16.53%)
> 4: 96384.2250 110036.1408 ( 14.16%)
> 8: 97460.6546 109968.0883 ( 12.83%)
> 16: 98876.1687 109387.8065 ( 10.63%)
> 32: 104364.6417 105241.6767 ( 0.84%)
> 64: 37502.6246 37451.1204 ( -0.14%)
> 128: 14496.1780 14610.5538 ( 0.79%)
> netperf results UDP_RR (node 0-1):
> baseline patched
> 1: 96176.1633 111397.5333 ( 15.83%)
> 4: 94758.5575 105681.7833 ( 11.53%)
> 8: 94340.2200 104138.3613 ( 10.39%)
> 16: 95208.5285 106714.0396 ( 12.08%)
> 32: 74745.9028 100713.8764 ( 34.74%)
> 64: 59351.4977 73536.1434 ( 23.90%)
> 128: 23755.4971 26648.7413 ( 12.18%)
>
> Note neither Kunpeng920 nor x86 Jacobsville supports SMT, so the SMT branch
> in the code has not been tested but it supposed to work.
>
> Chen Yu also noticed this will improve the performance of tbench and
> netperf on a 24 CPUs Jacobsville machine, there are 4 CPUs in one
> cluster sharing L2 Cache.
>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> [https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]]
> Tested-by: Yicong Yang <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Tim Chen <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
> kernel/sched/topology.c | 12 +++++++++
> 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index b3e25be58e2b..d91bf64f81f5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7012,6 +7012,30 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
> }
> }
>
> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_cluster_active)) {
> + struct sched_group *sg = sd->groups;
> +
> + if (sg->flags & SD_CLUSTER) {
> + for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_group_span(sg), target + 1) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpus))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (has_idle_core) {
> + i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
> + if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> + return i;
> + } else {
> + if (--nr <= 0)
> + return -1;
> + idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p);
> + if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
> + return idle_cpu;
> + }
> + }
> + cpumask_andnot(cpus, cpus, sched_group_span(sg));
> + }
> + }
> +
> for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1) {
> if (has_idle_core) {
> i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
> @@ -7019,7 +7043,7 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
> return i;
>
> } else {
> - if (!--nr)
> + if (--nr <= 0)
> return -1;
> idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p);
> if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
> @@ -7121,7 +7145,7 @@ 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
> @@ -7148,8 +7172,14 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> */
> if (prev != target && cpus_share_cache(prev, target) &&
> (available_idle_cpu(prev) || sched_idle_cpu(prev)) &&
> - asym_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, prev))
> - return prev;
> + asym_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, prev)) {
> + if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_cluster_active))
> + return prev;
> +
> + if (cpus_share_resources(prev, target))
> + return prev;
I have one minor question, previously Peter mentioned that he wants to get rid of the
percpu sd_share_id, not sure if he means that not using it in select_idle_cpu()
or remove that variable completely to not introduce extra space?
Hi Peter, could you please give us more hints on this? thanks.
If we wants to get rid of this variable, would this work?
if ((sd->groups->flags & SD_CLUSTER) &&
cpumask_test_cpu(prev, sched_group_span(sd->groups))
return prev
Anyway, I'll queue a test job on top of your version and see what the result is.
thanks,
Chenyu