Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <077e87e2-be7c-c8d5-fa25-fe46e012d3f8@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:03:54 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] sched: Extend cpu idle state for 1ms
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Swapnil Sapkal <Swapnil.Sapkal@amd.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        shrikanth hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20230725193048.124796-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230725193048.124796-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk


On 7/26/23 1:00 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Allow select_task_rq to consider a cpu as idle for 1ms after that cpu
> has exited the idle loop.
> 
> This speeds up the following hackbench workload on a 192 cores AMD EPYC
> 9654 96-Core Processor (over 2 sockets):
> 
> hackbench -g 32 -f 20 --threads --pipe -l 480000 -s 100
> 
> from 49s to 34s. (30% speedup)
> 
> My working hypothesis for why this helps is: queuing more than a single
> task on the runqueue of a cpu which just exited idle rather than
> spreading work over other idle cpus helps power efficiency on systems
> with large number of cores.
> 
> This was developed as part of the investigation into a weird regression
> reported by AMD where adding a raw spinlock in the scheduler context
> switch accelerated hackbench.
> 
> It turned out that changing this raw spinlock for a loop of 10000x
> cpu_relax within do_idle() had similar benefits.
> 
> This patch achieve a similar effect without the busy-waiting by
> introducing a runqueue state sampling the sched_clock() when exiting
> idle, which allows select_task_rq to consider "as idle" a cpu which has
> recently exited idle.
> 
> This patch should be considered "food for thoughts", and I would be glad
> to hear feedback on whether it causes regressions on _other_ workloads,
> and whether it helps with the hackbench workload on large Intel system
> as well.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/09e0f469-a3f7-62ef-75a1-e64cec2dcfc5@amd.com
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Cc: Swapnil Sapkal <Swapnil.Sapkal@amd.com>
> Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c  | 4 ++++
>  kernel/sched/sched.h | 3 +++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index a68d1276bab0..d40e3a0a5ced 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -6769,6 +6769,7 @@ void __sched schedule_idle(void)
>  	 * TASK_RUNNING state.
>  	 */
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(current->__state);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(this_rq()->idle_end_time, sched_clock());
>  	do {
>  		__schedule(SM_NONE);
>  	} while (need_resched());
> @@ -7300,6 +7301,9 @@ int idle_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>  
> +	if (sched_clock() < READ_ONCE(rq->idle_end_time) + IDLE_CPU_DELAY_NS)

Wouldn't this hurt the latency badly? Specially on a loaded system with 
a workload that does a lot of wakeup.

ran schbench on a 50% loaded system with stress-ng. (there could be a better benchmark to measure latency)
I see that latency takes a hit. specially tail latencies.full log below with different schbench groups. 

		     6.5-rc3		6.5-rc3+this patch

Groups: 1
50.0th:                 14.0              13.0
75.0th:                 16.0              16.0
90.0th:                 19.5              20.0
95.0th:                 53.0              226.0
99.0th:                 1969.0            2165.0
99.5th:                 2912.0            2648.0
99.9th:                 4680.0            4142.0

Groups: 2
50.0th:                 15.5              15.5
75.0th:                 18.0              19.5
90.0th:                 25.5              497.0
95.0th:                 323.0             1384.0
99.0th:                 2055.0            3144.0
99.5th:                 2972.0            4014.0
99.9th:                 6026.0            6560.0

Groups: 4
50.0th:                 18.0              18.5
75.0th:                 21.5              26.0
90.0th:                 56.0              940.5
95.0th:                 678.0             1896.0
99.0th:                 2484.0            3756.0
99.5th:                 3224.0            4616.0
99.9th:                 4960.0            6824.0

Groups: 8
50.0th:                 23.5              25.5
75.0th:                 30.5              421.5
90.0th:                 443.5             1722.0
95.0th:                 1410.0            2736.0
99.0th:                 3942.0            5496.0
99.5th:                 5232.0            7016.0
99.9th:                 7996.0            8896.0

Groups: 16
50.0th:                 33.5              41.5
75.0th:                 49.0              752.0
90.0th:                 1067.5            2332.0
95.0th:                 2093.0            3468.0
99.0th:                 5048.0            6728.0
99.5th:                 6760.0            7624.0
99.9th:                 8592.0            9504.0

Groups: 32
50.0th:                 60.0              79.0
75.0th:                 456.5             1712.0
90.0th:                 2788.0            3996.0
95.0th:                 4544.0            5768.0
99.0th:                 8444.0            9104.0
99.5th:                 9168.0            9808.0
99.9th:                 11984.0           12448.0


> +		return 1;
> +
>  	if (rq->curr != rq->idle)
>  		return 0;
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 81ac605b9cd5..8932e198a33a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -97,6 +97,8 @@
>  # define SCHED_WARN_ON(x)      ({ (void)(x), 0; })
>  #endif
>  
> +#define IDLE_CPU_DELAY_NS	1000000		/* 1ms */
> +
>  struct rq;
>  struct cpuidle_state;
>  
> @@ -1010,6 +1012,7 @@ struct rq {
>  
>  	struct task_struct __rcu	*curr;
>  	struct task_struct	*idle;
> +	u64			idle_end_time;
>  	struct task_struct	*stop;
>  	unsigned long		next_balance;
>  	struct mm_struct	*prev_mm;