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>
 <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>
 <7671d3f0-ca07-7260-a855-473ab58d1c30@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <7671d3f0-ca07-7260-a855-473ab58d1c30@oracle.com>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 23:10:04 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkrtw3jH1eWn52r+L75k84SeYuvw12A5cbmofiNjoJFhEsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks
To:     Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:14 AM Subhra Mazumdar
<subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Okay, that's true in task wakeup path, and also load_balance seems to pull task
without checking cookie too. But my system is not over loaded when I tested this
patch, so there is none or only one task in rq and on the rq's rb
tree, so this patch
does not make a difference.

The question is, should we do cookie checking for task selecting CPU and load
balance CPU pulling task?

Thanks,
-Aubrey