Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp417308pxu; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 05:35:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzo2MC21DZza/8hJJVjjFo2oDWOpj6vHI9dNZxDMIHsXf1H4ehRHbBL3n51xf4i6wuGb1sU X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1516:: with SMTP id f22mr11624563edw.382.1607693757433; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 05:35:57 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1607693757; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=b92O2PDZzrF4YM5hAicYTrxWcyTylV4m3oHA/EUODG44W74KAzcRG9Ll8yzi4wrhbW dExN2sQXu+2QXDYVGSMHj/wYEaSnsK/Qy7bOp317zDilrHYE4opjO/8UF6ayB/vfspH4 78CKK5fSdEILaUpQVb4fxz3AHnyd4B0yPIiW0ppc4BdJBmbdOWfEy2N74TiCigDfOSgJ kHRo19Pg55tyPdb3m0xwAx+FomeIRPvtr1Rr2+TVtJQxOjm3oMEoEa+qmweXUUgFMXvG 1B5jtcV8BOlq8zDodSINsdaVmTCz8gEHQZHbruakDcx43hfUWHjSNEvRVLcx+mnZ3Kcy UMug== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=Dh/PcNBgVDYngHlmmkjDb0nR5+HwfmDQ2VcP/CcImso=; b=EhBqRhoAn6SvlZlIVMaFSk2sDx60sSw+eQWEhuUo/7m1xzZF8UUDHzZMHcnAuAag99 gZhPkpp0W2Oj9+sFyVs52VhKsQ85UqyyFeZb7ZnXhLRZL6s7PJVYSMkWcr8jJMKTmtn8 ANRB6bGTTQCwXFCwd3+kAwOzzRfSjqbbBuyMbq5oucMA8Wg6m4tokM0ns1Yl4hRcmbx7 GHyTk3tJfSVg6/wzh9sFeIJnupboEESVQKg72HrQdtdXke+GeHYgp3XoyAIqY90d9CI+ woAtThP/5JS9iKuhubYDOWMpJVzDKipnjBV7lklM6KRJL30jPv8df8dZXXl2Uvw36ipb J0FA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id rp28si4577924ejb.10.2020.12.11.05.35.31; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 05:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390642AbgLKKZg (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 05:25:36 -0500 Received: from outbound-smtp37.blacknight.com ([46.22.139.220]:34059 "EHLO outbound-smtp37.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728893AbgLKKZB (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 05:25:01 -0500 Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail06.blacknight.ie [81.17.255.152]) by outbound-smtp37.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 874AB19F6 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:23:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 11456 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2020 10:23:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO techsingularity.net) (mgorman@techsingularity.net@[84.203.22.4]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 11 Dec 2020 10:23:59 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:23:57 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Vincent Guittot Cc: Peter Ziljstra , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Aubrey Li , Barry Song , Juri Lelli , Valentin Schneider , Linux-ARM Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Reduce scanning of runqueues in select_idle_sibling Message-ID: <20201211102357.GW3371@techsingularity.net> References: <20201208153501.1467-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20201209143748.GP3371@techsingularity.net> <20201210110424.GR3371@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 10:51:17AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:04, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:38:37AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > while testing your patchset and Aubrey one on top of tip, I'm facing > > > > some perf regression on my arm64 numa system on hackbench and reaim. > > > > The regression seems to comes from your patchset but i don't know > > > > which patch in particular yet > > > > > > > > hackbench -l 256000 -g 1 > > > > > > > > v5.10-rc7 + tip/sched/core 13,255(+/- 3.22%) > > > > with your patchset 15.368(+/- 2.74) -15.9% > > > > > > > > I'm also seeing perf regression on reaim but this one needs more > > > > investigation before confirming > > > > > > > > TBH, I was not expecting regressions. I'm running more test to find > > > > which patch is the culprit > > > > > > The regression comes from patch 3: sched/fair: Do not replace > > > recent_used_cpu with the new target > > > > > > > That's not entirely surprising. The intent of the patch is to increase the > > hit rate of p->recent_used_cpu but it's not a guaranteed win due to two > > corner cases. If multiple tasks have the same p->recent_used_cpu, they can > > race to use that CPU and stack as a result instead of searching the domain. > > If SMT is enabled then p->recent_used_cpu can point to an idle CPU that has > > a busy sibling which the search would have avoided in select_idle_core(). > > > > I think you are using processes and sockets for hackbench but as you'll > > see later, hackbench can be used both to show losses and gains. > > I run more hackbench tests with pipe and socket and both show > regression with patch 3 whereas this is significant improvement with > other patches and Aubrey's one > Is SMT enabled on your test machine? If not, then patch 4 should make no difference but if SMT is enabled, I wonder how this untested version of patch 3 behaves for you. The main difference is that the recent used cpu is used as a search target so that it would still check if it's an idle core and if not, fall through so it's used as an idle CPU after checking it's allowed by p->cpus_ptr. diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 5c41875aec23..63980bcf6e70 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -6275,21 +6275,14 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target) return prev; } - /* Check a recently used CPU as a potential idle candidate: */ + /* Check a recently used CPU as a search target: */ recent_used_cpu = p->recent_used_cpu; + p->recent_used_cpu = prev; if (recent_used_cpu != prev && recent_used_cpu != target && cpus_share_cache(recent_used_cpu, target) && - (available_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu)) && - cpumask_test_cpu(p->recent_used_cpu, p->cpus_ptr) && - asym_fits_capacity(task_util, recent_used_cpu)) { - /* - * Replace recent_used_cpu with prev as it is a potential - * candidate for the next wake: - */ - p->recent_used_cpu = prev; - return recent_used_cpu; - } + (available_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu))) + target = recent_used_cpu; /* * For asymmetric CPU capacity systems, our domain of interest is @@ -6768,9 +6761,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags) } else if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU) { /* XXX always ? */ /* Fast path */ new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu); - - if (want_affine) - current->recent_used_cpu = cpu; } rcu_read_unlock(); -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs