Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-177139-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <422fc38c-6096-8804-17ce-1420661743e8@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:37:07 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.1
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/10] sched/eevdf: Use sched_attr::sched_runtime to
 set request/slice suggestion
Content-Language: en-US
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
 juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
 rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
 bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, tglx@linutronix.de, efault@gmx.de,
 tim.c.chen@intel.com, yu.c.chen.y@gmail.com
References: <20240405102754.435410987@infradead.org>
 <20240405110010.934104715@infradead.org> <ZjpFruUiBiNi6VSO@chenyu5-mobl2>
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZjpFruUiBiNi6VSO@chenyu5-mobl2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:
	=?utf-8?B?MllpSjltY2Q4OHJqUXF0RUVIdUVCZ0tmRTNVZ1hUM0dWUDRQZTdheGNqNWJM?=
 =?utf-8?B?OTZPVlkvc09jVUJZZGhhQW5Rc3A0amxVMXJsZGM4L2lERlU5VTJXdENjbkpU?=
 =?utf-8?B?bWZCSFR2OTFQNjdNWWFEZlgza21USmp6OTh3dlZPbVVJem9PNENWSU9sZHhJ?=
 =?utf-8?B?bEN3M3B0L0tTSE5HQWcvZCtPN2trWlVYUFZZZUs2QVFWRnZqZVN2OHlGRDNV?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZjJwZlRTeWN6b1NvRTZrVTNKeGFwc2UyVTlYNU9GQTRoLzNOT3EzQW1wdjRW?=
 =?utf-8?B?MU5qWDdjOVFlNVgyMnQwTmJOcEtuSkVrNjNSajhkMXJGNk8reVN6THUwV3pz?=
 =?utf-8?B?YnIwOGJYVUJKL1lwOFFGOTlHL0Y4aXVKLzE3dVl2bXNqejJta3pwYmQ3Yms4?=
 =?utf-8?B?MEV5d1d1Ym9OOE1qWnptdUtacndnbUhNTzdOaDRRT0lwVlpRbTU1NHlCUWc5?=
 =?utf-8?B?Y2hNUTBrNnpONnRPbmptZ1JLYnFGVmdVNUxTZlJPQ1J1REJnYktzWVpsVXpW?=
 =?utf-8?B?QmEvR3NnVEVRTndoRXdUOTI2L2hucWpDNVdJL3hGQTYrZnByeVZIOERaOENT?=
 =?utf-8?B?SlFRM3JKNkl5OWlrWkVQYmVmQ3ZYZHEvdUYreEUwbnBDdlF2azJ5TjZpenlZ?=
 =?utf-8?B?MnVwOVMrUGZtMmJlZFl5Wm14K0dDWUdrRmRYSFFLWStPS1NVd2xqZG9nSEdN?=
 =?utf-8?B?YVgxRkRlaTNpWHF3Ym9iemptR3l1SkYyeWdVbHFTekhON2xkWEYzME1OeUJZ?=
 =?utf-8?B?M2c0ZlpBbGpYaWVKRUl0bk5vbXZxRHYrV0szK3pKVkdPSTJhRnB6clAvM3JN?=
 =?utf-8?B?M3BUeSt4a3kwUk1Da3Zta2UrV1JkVzFCNVBJeUZUamJQQ0hHM3pUY2orQ0ZV?=
 =?utf-8?B?bEM5YkQxWGJBTllmZFpScXBRRC9OQ1JnVDhPQUdTb0pnWHlvR2dPaTFhbFR5?=
 =?utf-8?B?UHVLUWF4R1VnTWlablBHSElNb1lZcG8vYU53T3NORjdrWVZxckxRVjZsM2Zq?=
 =?utf-8?B?U2dORDZqRlNHRmZGTng0bEt3ZFZ5ak9ESU9FVC9kaDg0aFZ1dG1aaGlSMlkx?=
 =?utf-8?B?T3pVcG00L0Z4c1Fzc1E3NnB1QWtxeVk4WDBCSkxLdGZaemRDY05zSnlXZG5Q?=
 =?utf-8?B?bW56VHNxdFdPTGVtUldxSXRSdnJ5aGRpVG5hajViWG42L0VaWlNhWGtWNTlB?=
 =?utf-8?B?WmpYdVNnZVB4cGpWeWJjZUM0K3oyYytBZ2NybGtweUpKdU1aMEk1RXF5WXBX?=
 =?utf-8?B?YTA4azl0b2NxcVVtUWVoYjRleW8vRFVMQ0ZSRm1qZlMvK2V4NmxGM0tYcWxY?=
 =?utf-8?B?cjY5b254Z01OckpWYnlTNm5vL2UyZnREOE95VkhVUnlXazRrVnNma2dEUE94?=
 =?utf-8?B?bUNPUUI4QVdWbTNWVUhaQlFPbDVrWGhtc29sWHlLZVBnOXRBK1ZGSXd4ZDRt?=
 =?utf-8?B?OXVma3oyQyt1MEtzYm9ncU1pemJsRm9TeERDRnZ6cFB3WG1oVDRia3hwWXRK?=
 =?utf-8?B?c09ndFVQQWtsNHIxcHEzRWlGcWFkNmpod2VvWTA4cCttQURvUlFJOUc2eDE2?=
 =?utf-8?B?R2Z2RDkxOExvYWpMdEcyMTJ5Qm9xeHNrNjJ4VzdkalNnV2VLV3ZyMzFuamJ3?=
 =?utf-8?B?OFAvSjB6NWdwNEIweXFYU0U2a2hNU0t2Y0ovYlNoeG1MRnE2aTVLeDhPWVR5?=
 =?utf-8?B?VHhhM0IvODFvNGhNajNHc3lCay84dURMVnh3NW01MEVtK3JiNGpaT3RnQTN3?=
 =?utf-8?B?alNnMFJkanprRVg2L1I2cFZMb3VPOEE4WGdvYWxWUXQwbEVtUnJhM1JtaEUz?=
 =?utf-8?B?RkczRE5oeUYra1pCMTlQQVFLWHBZd0lpcWNYSmhTYTNlZVhhNjNRaUxCbERR?=
 =?utf-8?B?Lzltd1d4V2dvWUZuQXlKNWVrOTZzc216bHhBczJFUFB1dXQvRXdjQkk1cGg5?=
 =?utf-8?B?eGRiS0ZJUFVnZWYyblZLRndPKzdoN3ZMZk41WEhYWTZBdDJwajVoWlhIZVQ5?=
 =?utf-8?B?dGp3OUhQK2djemNvd2VqdEY0b3c3ODUxanUwaWNDR2h5eVdKcWNNUC9QYWRK?=
 =?utf-8?B?eWtHQURYbFhsYmxmL1Y2RXZLZ3dGVGhmUnBVcXY4U09SU1F3ejFOTVBBTnRn?=
 =?utf-8?Q?CNtIMMAhfjF0umzGozGVMUP2a?=
X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5f4ee223-6c7d-4c22-2fb0-08dc73022d0a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MW2PR12MB2379.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2024 04:07:16.5621
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: L8/xXW9JsDb1ZDEMytVpDttIt61CjbofpZhceBKTTnZw2IdH8NCHhSUfvBU9LAL7trN6kFB++80aAThOnaQQxw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW3PR12MB4444

Hello Chenyu,

On 5/7/2024 8:45 PM, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2024-04-05 at 12:28:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Allow applications to directly set a suggested request/slice length using
>> sched_attr::sched_runtime.
>>
>> The implementation clamps the value to: 0.1[ms] <= slice <= 100[ms]
>> which is 1/10 the size of HZ=1000 and 10 times the size of HZ=100.
>>
>> Applications should strive to use their periodic runtime at a high
>> confidence interval (95%+) as the target slice. Using a smaller slice
>> will introduce undue preemptions, while using a larger value will
>> increase latency.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>>
> 
> Is it possible to leverage this task slice to do better task wakeup placement?
> The idea is that, the smaller the slice the wakee has, the less idle CPU it
> should scan. This can reduce wake latency and inhibit costly task migration,
> especially on large systems.
> 
> We did some experiments and got some performance improvements:
> 
> 
> From 9cb806476586d7048fcbd0f66d0101f0dbb8fd2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 22:36:29 +0800
> Subject: [RFC PATCH] sched/eevdf: Use customized slice to reduce wakeup latency
>  and inhibit task migration
> 
> Problem 1:
> The overhead of task migration is high on many-core system. The overhead
> brings performance penalty due to broken cache locality/higher cache-to-cache
> latency.
> 
> Problem 2:
> During wakeup, the time spent on searching for an idle CPU is costly on
> many-core system. Besides, access to other CPU's rq statistics brings
> cace contention:
> 
> available_idle_cpu(cpu) -> idle_cpu(cpu) -> {rq->curr, rq->nr_running}
> 
> Although SIS_UTIL throttles the scan depth based on system utilization,
> there is requirement to further limit the scan depth for specific workload,
> especially for short duration wakee.
> 
> Now we have the interface to customize the request/slice. The smaller the
> slice is, the earlier the task can be picked up, and the lower wakeup latency
> the task expects. Leverage the wakee's slice to further throttle the
> idle CPU scan depth - the shorter slice, the less CPUs to scan.
> 
> Test on 240 CPUs, 2 sockets system. With SNC(sub-numa-cluster) enabled,
> each LLC domain has 60 CPUs. There is noticeable improvement of netperf.
> (With SNC disabled, more improvements should be seen because C2C is higher)
> 
> The global slice is 3 msec(sysctl_sched_base_slice) by default on my ubuntu
> 22.04, and the customized slice is set to 0.1 msec for both netperf and netserver:
> 
> for i in $(seq 1 $job); do
> 	netperf_slice -e 100000 -4 -H 127.0.01 -t TCP_RR -c -C -l 100 &
> done
> 
> case            	load    	baseline(std%)	compare%( std%)
> TCP_RR          	60-threads	 1.00 (  1.60)	 +0.35 (  1.73)
> TCP_RR          	120-threads	 1.00 (  1.34)	 -0.96 (  1.24)
> TCP_RR          	180-threads	 1.00 (  1.59)	+92.20 (  4.24)
> TCP_RR          	240-threads	 1.00 (  9.71)	+43.11 (  2.97)
> 
> Suggested-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c     | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
>  kernel/sched/features.h |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index edc23f6588a3..f269ae7d6e24 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7368,6 +7368,24 @@ static inline int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd
>  
>  #endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_SMT */
>  
> +/*
> + * Scale the scan number of idle CPUs according to customized
> + * wakee's slice. The smaller the slice is, the earlier the task
> + * wants be picked up, thus the lower wakeup latency the task expects.
> + * The baseline is the global sysctl_sched_base_slice. Task slice
> + * smaller than the global one would shrink the scan number.
> + */
> +static int adjust_idle_scan(struct task_struct *p, int nr)
> +{
> +	if (!sched_feat(SIS_FAST))
> +		return nr;
> +
> +	if (!p->se.custom_slice || p->se.slice >= sysctl_sched_base_slice)
> +		return nr;
> +
> +	return div_u64(nr * p->se.slice, sysctl_sched_base_slice);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Scan the LLC domain for idle CPUs; this is dynamically regulated by
>   * comparing the average scan cost (tracked in sd->avg_scan_cost) against the
> @@ -7384,10 +7402,9 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>  	if (sched_feat(SIS_UTIL)) {
>  		sd_share = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, target));
>  		if (sd_share) {
> -			/* because !--nr is the condition to stop scan */> -			nr = READ_ONCE(sd_share->nr_idle_scan) + 1;
> +			nr = adjust_idle_scan(p, READ_ONCE(sd_share->nr_idle_scan));
>  			/* overloaded LLC is unlikely to have idle cpu/core */
> -			if (nr == 1)
> +			if (nr <= 0)

I was wondering if this would preserve the current behavior with
SIS_FAST toggled off? Since the implementation below still does a
"--nr <= 0" , wouldn't it effectively visit one CPU less overall now?

Have you tried something similar to the below hunk?

	/* because !--nr is the condition to stop scan */
	nr = adjust_idle_scan(p, READ_ONCE(sd_share->nr_idle_scan)) + 1;
	if (nr == 1)
		return -1;

I agree with Mike that looking at slice to limit scan-depth seems odd.
My experience with netperf is that the workload cares more about the
server-client being co-located on the closest cache domain and by
limiting scan-depth using slice, this is indirectly achieved since all
the wakeups carry the WF_SYNc flag.

P.S. have you tried using the slice in __select_idle_cpu()? Similar to
sched_idle_cpu() check, perhaps an additional sched_preempt_short_cpu()
which compares rq->curr->se.slice with the waking task's slice and
returs that cpu if SIS_SHORT can help run the workload quicker? Note:
This will not work if the SIS scan itself is the largest overhead in the
wakeup cycle and not the task placement itself. Previously during
SIS_UTIL testing, to measure the overheads of scan vs placement, we
would do a full scan but return the result that SIS_UTIL would have
returned to determine the overhead of the search itself.

>  				return -1;
>  		}
>  	}
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/features.h b/kernel/sched/features.h
> index 143f55df890b..176324236018 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/features.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ SCHED_FEAT(TTWU_QUEUE, true)
>   * When doing wakeups, attempt to limit superfluous scans of the LLC domain.
>   */
>  SCHED_FEAT(SIS_UTIL, true)
> +SCHED_FEAT(SIS_FAST, true)
>  
>  /*
>   * Issue a WARN when we do multiple update_rq_clock() calls

--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek