Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:50:39 +0200
From:   Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Commit 554c8aa8ecad causing severe performance degression with
 pcc-cpufreq
Message-ID: <20180717085039.kqxwbkgruhj5qxtx@suselix>
References: <20180717065048.74mmgk4t5utjaa6a@suselix>
 <CAJZ5v0ihkNKPrtzKynt8jgQi1JjwCm+SdoUnu4XqoPSkOroHvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gG5XNmpR_0U+6EOFHPeVz+EhunLoQ0-sXDCBg8QL3mQw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gG5XNmpR_0U+6EOFHPeVz+EhunLoQ0-sXDCBg8QL3mQw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:03:41AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for your report!
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I've recently noticed that commit 554c8aa8ecad ("sched: idle: Select
> >> idle state before stopping the tick") causes severe performance drop
> >> for systems using pcc-cpufreq driver. Depending on the number of CPUs
> >> the system might be almost unusable. The OS jitter for 4.17.y and
> >> 4.18.-rcx kernels is off the charts, you can even spot it with top
> >> command (issued when the system is supposedly idle), e.g.
> >>
> >>  top - 14:44:24 up 2 min,  1 user,  load average: 90.11, 38.20, 14.38
> >>  Tasks: 1199 total, 109 running, 541 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> >>  %Cpu(s):  1.2 us, 58.7 sy,  0.0 ni, 39.3 id,  0.6 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3 si,  0.0 st
> >>  KiB Mem:  13137064+total,  1192168 used, 13017848+free,     2340 buffers
> >>  KiB Swap:  2104316 total,        0 used,  2104316 free.   522296 cached Mem
> >>
> >>    PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S    %CPU  %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND
> >>   3373 root      20   0  982024  49916  36120 R  96.691 0.038   0:19.54 kubelet
> >>     67 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  78.676 0.000   0:49.36 kworker/9:0
> >>     25 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  78.125 0.000   0:49.67 kworker/2:0
> >>    182 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  75.735 0.000   1:18.17 kworker/28:0
> >>     43 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  75.000 0.000   0:11.56 kworker/5:0
> >>    103 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  74.449 0.000   0:46.83 kworker/15:0
> >>    334 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  72.978 0.000   1:06.88 kworker/53:0
> >>    789 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  69.853 0.000   1:29.50 kworker/38:1
> >>    418 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  69.301 0.000   0:41.33 kworker/67:0
> >>    779 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  68.934 0.000   1:33.60 kworker/27:1
> >>    773 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  68.566 0.000   1:37.91 kworker/22:1
> >>    762 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  68.015 0.000   1:41.01 kworker/11:1
> >>    769 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  67.647 0.000   1:37.65 kworker/18:1
> >>    805 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  67.096 0.000   1:30.96 kworker/54:1
> >>    840 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.912 0.000   1:23.82 kworker/89:1
> >>    812 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.728 0.000   1:31.89 kworker/59:1
> >>    847 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.360 0.000   1:28.40 kworker/96:1
> >>    763 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.176 0.000   1:42.57 kworker/12:1
> >>    772 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.176 0.000   1:12.58 kworker/21:1
> >>    821 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.176 0.000   1:29.62 kworker/69:1
> >>    923 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.809 0.000   1:44.32 kworker/3:18
> >>   1284 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.809 0.000   1:23.50 kworker/101:2
> >>     61 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.625 0.000   1:29.37 kworker/8:0
> >>   3531 root      20   0   24384   3768   2356 R  65.625 0.003   0:08.91 top
> >>    771 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.074 0.000   1:37.90 kworker/20:1
> >>    767 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  64.706 0.000   1:38.01 kworker/16:1
> >>    764 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  64.522 0.000   1:40.28 kworker/13:1
> >>    765 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  64.154 0.000   1:40.13 kworker/14:1
> >>
> >> When I apply below patch (trying to revert essential parts of commit
> >> 554c8aa8ecad) behaviour seems back to normal.
> >
> > Well, that basically defeats the purpose of the change in commit
> > 554c8aa8ecad, so it's not what I'd like to do to fix this problem.
> >
> > Also it would be good to understand what actually happens.
> >
> >> I know that pcc-cpufreq driver is not "state-of-the-art" when it comes
> >> to cpufreq drivers and you better not use it.
> >
> > That's exactly right.
> >
> >> But I wonder whether commit 554c8aa8ecad ("sched: idle: Select idle state before
> >> stopping the tick") introduced bad behaviour for other cases as well.
> >
> > It has been tested quite extensively in that respect, although
> > admittedly not with the pcc-cpufreq driver.
> >
> > Nothing bad related to it has been has been reported so far, FWIW.
> >
> >> I'll send some performance results to illustrate the issue asap. I've
> >> also tried to modify pcc-cpufreq to reduce the amount of frequency
> >> changes triggered by this driver but this does not help for kernels
> >> where commit 554c8aa8ecad is applied.
> >
> > Can you replace pcc-cpufreq with a different cpufreq driver on the
> > affected systems?  If so, do performance numbers look bad after that
> > too?
> 
> Also, what cpufreq governor do you use with pcc-cpufreq?

Ondemand governor. Which triggers a lot of PCC related platform calls.
And as Peter noticed already the driver has a severe bottleneck (lock
protecting shared memory used for all CPUs to pass data to/from
platform for PCC calls).

> Does changing it to something like "performance" improve things?

With performance governor above mentioned bottleneck is no issue.

On balance before this commit users could use pcc-cpufreq but had
already suboptimal performance (compared to say intel_pstate driver
which can be used changing BIOS options). Starting with this commit
systems using pcc-cpufreq are unusable with high number of CPUs (top
output above is for system with 120 CPUs).

So should the driver be removed (sooner or later), or this behaviour
be documented somewhere, or just leave it as is.


Andreas