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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks
To:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        =?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>
References: <cover.1556025155.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <2364f2b65bf50826d881c84d7634b6565dfee527.1556025155.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <20190429061516.GA9796@aaronlu>
 <6dfc392f-e24b-e641-2f7d-f336a90415fa@linux.intel.com>
 <777b7674-4811-dac4-17df-29bd028d6b26@linux.intel.com>
 <CAERHkrvU0nay-cG9equdOBejOZ5Ffdxo+67ZRp9q0L9BQkcAtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <eb9abb34-d946-c63c-750b-8f52ed842670@oracle.com>
 <28fb6854-2772-5d29-087a-6a0cf6afe626@oracle.com>
 <CAERHkrsavsBoEOR5Eq-nm6ADarS0zTi5Mu-T7TO6JoSUi7TRfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8098b70b-2095-91ea-d4ad-9181829066c7@oracle.com>
 <CAERHkrvKfvrSOKoJ5StYWENm9domgx1OkPyeKHacP9AGrgf8cg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <7671d3f0-ca07-7260-a855-473ab58d1c30@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 May 2019 19:14:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAERHkrvKfvrSOKoJ5StYWENm9domgx1OkPyeKHacP9AGrgf8cg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 5/8/19 6:38 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:29 AM Subhra Mazumdar
> <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/19 5:01 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:41 AM Subhra Mazumdar
>>> <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/19 11:19 AM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/19 8:49 AM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>>>> Pawan ran an experiment setting up 2 VMs, with one VM doing a
>>>>>>> parallel kernel build and one VM doing sysbench,
>>>>>>> limiting both VMs to run on 16 cpu threads (8 physical cores), with
>>>>>>> 8 vcpu for each VM.
>>>>>>> Making the fix did improve kernel build time by 7%.
>>>>>> I'm gonna agree with the patch below, but just wonder if the testing
>>>>>> result is consistent,
>>>>>> as I didn't see any improvement in my testing environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIUC, from the code behavior, especially for 2 VMs case(only 2
>>>>>> different cookies), the
>>>>>> per-rq rb tree unlikely has nodes with different cookies, that is, all
>>>>>> the nodes on this
>>>>>> tree should have the same cookie, so:
>>>>>> - if the parameter cookie is equal to the rb tree cookie, we meet a
>>>>>> match and go the
>>>>>> third branch
>>>>>> - else, no matter we go left or right, we can't find a match, and
>>>>>> we'll return idle thread
>>>>>> finally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please correct me if I was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Aubrey
>>>>> This is searching in the per core rb tree (rq->core_tree) which can have
>>>>> 2 different cookies. But having said that, even I didn't see any
>>>>> improvement with the patch for my DB test case. But logically it is
>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah, my bad. It is per rq. But still can have 2 different cookies. Not sure
>>>> why you think it is unlikely?
>>> Yeah, I meant 2 different cookies on the system, but unlikely 2
>>> different cookies
>>> on one same rq.
>>>
>>> If I read the source correctly, for the sched_core_balance path, when try to
>>> steal cookie from another CPU, sched_core_find() uses dst's cookie to search
>>> if there is a cookie match in src's rq, and sched_core_find() returns idle or
>>> matched task, and later put this matched task onto dst's rq (activate_task() in
>>> sched_core_find()). At this moment, the nodes on the rq's rb tree should have
>>> same cookies.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Aubrey
>> Yes, but sched_core_find is also called from pick_task to find a local
>> matching task.
> Can a local searching introduce a different cookies? Where is it from?
No. I meant the local search uses the same binary search of sched_core_find
so it has to be correct.
>
>> The enqueue side logic of the scheduler is unchanged with
>> core scheduling,
> But only the task with cookies is placed onto this rb tree?
>
>> so it is possible tasks with different cookies are
>> enqueued on the same rq. So while searching for a matching task locally
>> doing it correctly should matter.
> May I know how exactly?
select_task_rq_* seems to be unchanged. So the search logic to find a cpu
to enqueue when a task becomes runnable is same as before and doesn't do
any kind of cookie matching.
>
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey