Message-ID: <55823F33.7040005@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:46:59 -0700
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, <riel@redhat.com>,
        <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
 BALANCE_WAKE
References: <1432761736-22093-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com>	 <20150528102127.GD3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>	 <20150528110514.GR18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>	 <1434087305.3674.26.camel@gmail.com> <5581B70D.2000800@fb.com> <1434588939.3444.25.camel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1434588939.3444.25.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1875
Lines: 51

On 06/17/2015 05:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 11:06 -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On 06/11/2015 10:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:05 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> If sd == NULL, we fall through and try to pull wakee despite nacked-by
>>> tsk_cpus_allowed() or wake_affine().
>>>
>>
>> So maybe add a check in the if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) for something
>> like this
>>
>> if (tmp >= 0) {
>> 	new_cpu = tmp;
>> 	goto unlock;
>> } else if (!want_affine) {
>> 	new_cpu = prev_cpu;
>> }
>>
>> so we can make sure we're not being pushed onto a cpu that we aren't
>> allowed on?  Thanks,
>
> The buglet is a messenger methinks.  You saying the patch helped without
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE being set is why I looked.  The buglet would seem to say
> that preferring cache is not harming your load after all.  It now sounds
> as though wake_wide() may be what you're squabbling with.
>
> Things aren't adding up all that well.

Yeah I'm horribly confused.  The other thing is I had to switch clusters 
(I know, I know, I'm changing the parameters of the test).  So these new 
boxes are haswell boxes, but basically the same otherwise, 2 socket 12 
core with HT, just newer/faster CPUs.  I'll re-run everything again and 
give the numbers so we're all on the same page again, but as it stands 
now I think we have this

3.10 with wake_idle forward ported - good
4.0 stock - 20% perf drop
4.0 w/ Peter's patch - good
4.0 w/ Peter's patch + SD_BALANCE_WAKE - 5% perf drop

I can do all these iterations again to verify, is there any other 
permutation you'd like to see?  Thanks,

Josef

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/