Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Message-ID: <1ae6290c-843f-4e50-9c81-7146d3597ed3@efficios.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:33:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: Bias runqueue selection towards almost
 idle prev CPU
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        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>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>, x86@kernel.org
References: <20230929183350.239721-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <ZRfKKxBzfu+kf0tM@chenyu5-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <0f3cfff3-0df4-3cb7-95cb-ea378517e13b@efficios.com>
 <ZSOMOhhkPIFmvz97@chenyu5-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <ebe4e40f-37df-40a9-9dfc-7f2a458151bd@efficios.com>
 <ZSZ2ERMysY7iEo+x@chenyu5-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZSZ2ERMysY7iEo+x@chenyu5-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-10-11 06:16, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2023-10-10 at 09:49:54 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2023-10-09 01:14, Chen Yu wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 at 07:45:38 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/23 03:11, Chen Yu wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-09-29 at 14:33:50 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>>> Introduce the WAKEUP_BIAS_PREV_IDLE scheduler feature. It biases
>>>>>> select_task_rq towards the previous CPU if it was almost idle
>>>>>> (avg_load <= 0.1%).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is a promising direction IMO. One question is that,
>>>>> can cfs_rq->avg.load_avg be used for percentage comparison?
>>>>> If I understand correctly, load_avg reflects that more than
>>>>> 1 tasks could have been running this runqueue, and the
>>>>> load_avg is the direct proportion to the load_weight of that
>>>>> cfs_rq. Besides, LOAD_AVG_MAX seems to not be the max value
>>>>> that load_avg can reach, it is the sum of
>>>>> 1024 * (y + y^1 + y^2 ... )
>>>>>
>>>>> For example,
>>>>> taskset -c 1 nice -n -20 stress -c 1
>>>>> cat /sys/kernel/debug/sched/debug | grep 'cfs_rq\[1\]' -A 12 | grep "\.load_avg"
>>>>>      .load_avg                      : 88763
>>>>>      .load_avg                      : 1024
>>>>>
>>>>> 88763 is higher than LOAD_AVG_MAX=47742
>>>>
>>>> I would have expected the load_avg to be limited to LOAD_AVG_MAX somehow,
>>>> but it appears that it does not happen in practice.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, if the cutoff is really at 0.1% or 0.2% of the real max,
>>>> does it really matter ?
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the util_avg can be used for precentage comparison I suppose?
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Or
>>>>> return cpu_util_without(cpu_rq(cpu), p) * 1000 <= capacity_orig_of(cpu) ?
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately using util_avg does not seem to work based on my testing.
>>>> Even at utilization thresholds at 0.1%, 1% and 10%.
>>>>
>>>> Based on comments in fair.c:
>>>>
>>>>    * CPU utilization is the sum of running time of runnable tasks plus the
>>>>    * recent utilization of currently non-runnable tasks on that CPU.
>>>>
>>>> I think we don't want to include currently non-runnable tasks in the
>>>> statistics we use, because we are trying to figure out if the cpu is a
>>>> idle-enough target based on the tasks which are currently running, for the
>>>> purpose of runqueue selection when waking up a task which is considered at
>>>> that point in time a non-runnable task on that cpu, and which is about to
>>>> become runnable again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Although LOAD_AVG_MAX is not the max possible load_avg, we still want to find
>>> a proper threshold to decide if the CPU is almost idle. The LOAD_AVG_MAX
>>> based threshold is modified a little bit:
>>>
>>> The theory is, if there is only 1 task on the CPU, and that task has a nice
>>> of 0, the task runs 50 us every 1000 us, then this CPU is regarded as almost
>>> idle.
>>>
>>> The load_sum of the task is:
>>> 50 * (1 + y + y^2 + ... + y^n)
>>> The corresponding avg_load of the task is approximately
>>> NICE_0_WEIGHT * load_sum / LOAD_AVG_MAX = 50.
>>> So:
>>>
>>> /* which is close to LOAD_AVG_MAX/1000 = 47 */
>>> #define ALMOST_IDLE_CPU_LOAD   50
>>
>> Sorry to be slow at understanding this concept, but this whole "load" value
>> is still somewhat magic to me.
>>
>> Should it vary based on CONFIG_HZ_{100,250,300,1000}, or is it independent ?
>> Where is it documented that the load is a value in "us" out of a window of
>> 1000 us ?
>>
> 
> My understanding is that, the load_sum of a single task is a value in "us" out
> of a window of 1000 us, while the load_avg of the task will multiply the weight
> of the task. In this case a task with nice 0 is NICE_0_WEIGHT = 1024.
> 
> __update_load_avg_se -> ___update_load_sum calculate the load_sum of a task(there
> is comments around ___update_load_sum to describe the pelt calculation),
> and ___update_load_avg() calculate the load_avg based on the task's weight.

Thanks for your thorough explanation, now it makes sense.

I understand as well that the cfs_rq->avg.load_sum is the result of summing
each task load_sum multiplied by their weight:

static inline void
enqueue_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
{
         cfs_rq->avg.load_avg += se->avg.load_avg;
         cfs_rq->avg.load_sum += se_weight(se) * se->avg.load_sum;
}

Therefore I think we need to multiply the load_sum value we aim for by
get_pelt_divider(&cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.avg) to compare it to a rq load_sum.

I plan to compare the rq load sum to "10 * get_pelt_divider(&cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.avg)"
to match runqueues which were previously idle (therefore with prior periods contribution
to the rq->load_sum being pretty much zero), and which have a current period rq load_sum
below or equal 10us per 1024us (<= 1%):

static inline unsigned long cfs_rq_weighted_load_sum(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
{
         return cfs_rq->avg.load_sum;
}

static unsigned long cpu_weighted_load_sum(struct rq *rq)
{
         return cfs_rq_weighted_load_sum(&rq->cfs);
}

/*
  * A runqueue is considered almost idle if:
  *
  *   cfs_rq->avg.load_sum / get_pelt_divider(&cfs_rq->avg) / 1024 <= 1%
  *
  * This inequality is transformed as follows to minimize arithmetic:
  *
  *   cfs_rq->avg.load_sum <= get_pelt_divider(&cfs_rq->avg) * 10
  */
static bool
almost_idle_cpu(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
{
         if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_BIAS_PREV_IDLE))
                 return false;
         return cpu_weighted_load_sum(cpu_rq(cpu)) <= 10 * get_pelt_divider(&cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.avg);
}

Does it make sense ?

Thanks,

Mathieu


>   
>> And with this value "50", it would cover the case where there is only a
>> single task taking less than 50us per 1000us, and cases where the sum for
>> the set of tasks on the runqueue is taking less than 50us per 1000us
>> overall.
>>
>>>
>>> static bool
>>> almost_idle_cpu(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
>>> {
>>>          if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_BIAS_PREV_IDLE))
>>>                  return false;
>>>          return cpu_load_without(cpu_rq(cpu), p) <= ALMOST_IDLE_CPU_LOAD;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Tested this on Intel Xeon Platinum 8360Y, Ice Lake server, 36 core/package,
>>> total 72 core/144 CPUs. Slight improvement is observed in hackbench socket mode:
>>>
>>> socket mode:
>>> hackbench -g 16 -f 20 -l 480000 -s 100
>>>
>>> Before patch:
>>> Running in process mode with 16 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 640 tasks)
>>> Each sender will pass 480000 messages of 100 bytes
>>> Time: 81.084
>>>
>>> After patch:
>>> Running in process mode with 16 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 640 tasks)
>>> Each sender will pass 480000 messages of 100 bytes
>>> Time: 78.083
>>>
>>>
>>> pipe mode:
>>> hackbench -g 16 -f 20 --pipe  -l 480000 -s 100
>>>
>>> Before patch:
>>> Running in process mode with 16 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 640 tasks)
>>> Each sender will pass 480000 messages of 100 bytes
>>> Time: 38.219
>>>
>>> After patch:
>>> Running in process mode with 16 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 640 tasks)
>>> Each sender will pass 480000 messages of 100 bytes
>>> Time: 38.348
>>>
>>> It suggests that, if the workload has larger working-set/cache footprint, waking up
>>> the task on its previous CPU could get more benefit.
>>
>> In those tests, what is the average % of idleness of your cpus ?
>>
> 
> For hackbench -g 16 -f 20 --pipe  -l 480000 -s 100, it is around 8~10% idle
> For hackbench -g 16 -f 20   -l 480000 -s 100, it is around 2~3% idle
> 
> Then the CPUs in packge 1 are offlined to get stable result when the group number is low.
> hackbench -g 1 -f 20 --pipe  -l 480000 -s 100
> Some CPUs are busy, others are idle, and some are half-busy.
> Core	CPU	Busy%
> -	-	49.57
> 0	0	1.89
> 0	72	75.55
> 1	1	100.00
> 1	73	0.00
> 2	2	100.00
> 2	74	0.00
> 3	3	100.00
> 3	75	0.01
> 4	4	78.29
> 4	76	17.72
> 5	5	100.00
> 5	77	0.00
> 
> 
> hackbench -g 1 -f 20  -l 480000 -s 100
> Core	CPU	Busy%
> -	-	48.29
> 0	0	57.94
> 0	72	21.41
> 1	1	83.28
> 1	73	0.00
> 2	2	11.44
> 2	74	83.38
> 3	3	21.45
> 3	75	77.27
> 4	4	26.89
> 4	76	80.95
> 5	5	5.01
> 5	77	83.09
> 
> 
> echo NO_WAKEUP_BIAS_PREV_IDLE > /sys/kernel/debug/sched/features
> hackbench -g 1 -f 20 --pipe  -l 480000 -s 100
> Running in process mode with 1 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 40 tasks)
> Each sender will pass 480000 messages of 100 bytes
> Time: 9.434
> 
> echo WAKEUP_BIAS_PREV_IDLE > /sys/kernel/debug/sched/features
> hackbench -g 1 -f 20 --pipe  -l 480000 -s 100
> Running in process mode with 1 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 40 tasks)
> Each sender will pass 480000 messages of 100 bytes
> Time: 9.373
> 
> thanks,
> Chenyu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com