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.1572437285.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <5e3cea14-28d1-bf1e-cabe-fb5b48fdeadc@linux.intel.com> <3c3c56c1-b8dc-652c-535e-74f6dcf45560@linux.intel.com>
 <CANaguZAz+mw1Oi8ecZt+JuCWbf=g5UvKrdSvAeM82Z1c+9oWAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e322a252-f983-e3f3-f823-16d0c16b2867@linux.intel.com> <20200212230705.GA25315@sinkpad>
 <29d43466-1e18-6b42-d4d0-20ccde20ff07@linux.intel.com> <CAERHkruG4y8si9FrBp7cZNEdfP7EzxbmYwvdF2EvHLf=mU1mgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200225034438.GA617271@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20200225034438.GA617271@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 13:32:35 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkrs_WX=gS0sQ2Wg_SZuAcf_qhKfT05co0uYgaQk8cFj0ag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@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>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.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 Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:44 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 02:10:53PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:37 AM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/12/20 3:07 PM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Have you guys been able to make progress on the issues with I/O intensive workload?
> > > >
> > > > I finally have some results with the following branch:
> > > > https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched/tree/coresched/v4-v5.5.y
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So the main conclusion is that for all the test cases we have studied,
> > > > core scheduling performs better than nosmt ! This is different than what
> > > > we tested a while back, so it's looking really good !
> > >
> > > Thanks for the data.  They look really encouraging.
> > >
> > > Aubrey is working on updating his patches so it will load balance
> > > to the idle cores a bit better.  We are testing those and will post
> > > the update soon.
> >
> > I added a helper to check task and cpu cookie match, including the
> > entire core idle case. The refined patchset updated at here:
> > https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_v4-v5.5.2
> >
> > This branch also includes Tim's patchset. According to our testing
> > result, the performance data looks on par with the previous version.
> > A good news is, v5.4.y stability issue on our 8 numa node machine
> > is gone on this v5.5.2 branch.
>
> One problem I have when testing this branch: the weight of the croup
> seems to be ignored.
>
> On a 2sockets/16cores/32threads VM, I grouped 8 sysbench(cpu mode)
> threads into one cgroup(cgA) and another 16 sysbench(cpu mode) threads
> into another cgroup(cgB). cgA and cgB's cpusets are set to the same
> socket's 8 cores/16 CPUs and cgA's cpu.shares is set to 10240 while cgB's
> cpu.shares is set to 2(so consider cgB as noise workload and cgA as
> the real workload).
>
> I had expected cgA to occupy 8 cpus(with each cpu on a different core)
> most of the time since it has way more weight than cgB, while cgB should
> occupy almost no CPUs since:
>  - when cgB's task is in the same CPU queue as cgA's task, then cgB's
>    task is given very little CPU due to its small weight;
>  - when cgB's task is in a CPU queue whose sibling's queue has cgA's
>    task, cgB's task should be forced idle(again, due to its small weight).
>
> But testing shows cgA occupies only 2 cpus during the entire run while
> cgB enjoys the remaining 14 cpus. As a comparison, when coresched is off,
> cgA can occupy 8 cpus during its run.
>
> I haven't taken a look at the patches, but would like to raise the
> problem first. My gut feeling is that, we didn't make the CPU's load
> balanced.
>
> P.S. it's not that I care about VM's performance, it's just easier to
> test kernel stuff using a VM than on a bare metal. Its CPU setup might
> seem weird, I just set it up to be the same as my host setup.

Aaron - did you test this before? In other words, if you reset repo to your
last commit:

- 5bd3c80 sched/fair : Wake up forced idle siblings if needed

Does the problem remain? Just want to check if this is a regression
 introduced by the subsequent patchset.

Thanks,
-Aubrey