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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1556025155.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <CAERHkrtOCbLQ-tFq9ujjnyaudtd_e0UaSA2GQG64JqdS6cuTKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190424140013.GA14594@sinkpad> <CAERHkrtVjU4SaHjPGNb140qBiU+wVELGaH6j9Z=cctToZ0qn9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190425095508.GA8387@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190425095508.GA8387@gmail.com>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:18:13 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkruMnwsD0iE1rQQGR3Zv1G+xbOBPODcgXz1fPn0kNRHsxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:55 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:00 PM Julien Desfossez
> > <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24-Apr-2019 09:13:10 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:18 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
> > > > <vpillai@digitalocean.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Second iteration of the core-scheduling feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > This version fixes apparent bugs and performance issues in v1. This
> > > > > doesn't fully address the issue of core sharing between processes
> > > > > with different tags. Core sharing still happens 1% to 5% of the time
> > > > > based on the nature of workload and timing of the runnable processes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v2
> > > > > -------------
> > > > > - rebased on mainline commit: 6d906f99817951e2257d577656899da02bb33105
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to post v2, based on this version, here is my benchmarks result.
> > > >
> > > > Environment setup
> > > > --------------------------
> > > > Skylake server, 2 numa nodes, 104 CPUs (HT on)
> > > > cgroup1 workload, sysbench (CPU intensive non AVX workload)
> > > > cgroup2 workload, gemmbench (AVX512 workload)
> > > >
> > > > Case 1: task number < CPU num
> > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > 36 sysbench threads in cgroup1
> > > > 36 gemmbench threads in cgroup2
> > > >
> > > > core sched off:
> > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 4.952, stddev = 0.55342
> > > > core sched on:
> > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 3.549, stddev = 0.04449
> > > >
> > > > Due to core cookie matching, sysbench tasks won't be affect by AVX512
> > > > tasks, latency has ~28% improvement!!!
> > > >
> > > > Case 2: task number > CPU number
> > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > 72 sysbench threads in cgroup1
> > > > 72 gemmbench threads in cgroup2
> > > >
> > > > core sched off:
> > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 11.914, stddev = 3.259
> > > > core sched on:
> > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 13.289, stddev = 4.863
> > > >
> > > > So not only power, now security and performance is a pair of contradictions.
> > > > Due to core cookie not matching and forced idle introduced, latency has ~12%
> > > > regression.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to post the results with HT off as well ?
> >
> > What's the point here to turn HT off? The latency is sensitive to the
> > relationship
> > between the task number and CPU number. Usually less CPU number, more run
> > queue wait time, and worse result.
>
> HT-off numbers are mandatory: turning HT off is by far the simplest way
> to solve the security bugs in these CPUs.
>
> Any core-scheduling solution *must* perform better than HT-off for all
> relevant workloads, otherwise what's the point?
>
Got it, I'll measure HT-off cases soon.

Thanks,
-Aubrey