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: <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> <CANaguZD205ccu1V_2W-QuMRrJA9SjJ5ng1do4NCdLy8NDKKrbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200227020432.GA628749@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain> <20200227141032.GA30178@pauld.bos.csb>
In-Reply-To: <20200227141032.GA30178@pauld.bos.csb>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:37:20 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkrtyAaEQqqMpV6HMKyHa47HNFwxs5peq4LQJem2z=DO1hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
To:     Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@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>,
        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, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:10 PM Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:04:32AM +0800 Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 03:51:37PM -0500, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> > > 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)
> > >
> > > The expected behaviour could also be that 8 processes share 4 cores and
> > > 8 hw threads right? This is what we are seeing mostly
> >
> > I expect the 8 cgA tasks to spread on each core, instead of occupying
> > 4 cores/8 hw threads. If they stay on 4 cores/8 hw threads, than on the
> > core level, these cores' load would be much higher than other cores
> > which are running cgB's tasks, this doesn't look right to me.
> >
>
> I don't think that's a valid assumption, at least since the load balancer rework.
>
> The scheduler will be looking much more at the number of running task versus
> the group weight. So in this case 2 running tasks, 2 siblings at the core level
> will look fine. There will be no reason to migrate.

Can this be replicated?

>
> > I think the end result should be: each core has two tasks queued, one
> > cgA task and one cgB task(to maintain load balance on the core level).
> > The two tasks are queued on different hw thread, with cgA's task runs
> > most of the time on one thread and cgB's task being forced idle most
> > of the time on the other thread.
> >
>
> With the core scheduler that does not seem to be a desired outcome. I think
> grouping the 8 cgA tasks on the 8 cpus of 4 cores seems right.
>
Especially, if the load of cgA task + cgB task > cpu capacity, grouping cgA
tasks can avoid forced idle completely. Maintaining core level balance seems
not the best result. I guess that's why with core scheduler enabled we saw
10-20% improvement in some cases against the default core scheduler disabled.

Thanks,
-Aubrey