On 6/29/19 3:59 AM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
>
> On 6/28/19 12:01 PM, Parth Shah wrote:
>>
>> On 6/27/19 6:59 AM, subhra mazumdar wrote:
>>> Use SIS_CORE to disable idle core search. For some workloads
>>> select_idle_core becomes a scalability bottleneck, removing it improves
>>> throughput. Also there are workloads where disabling it can hurt latency,
>>> so need to have an option.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazum...@oracle.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> index c1ca88e..6a74808 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> @@ -6280,9 +6280,11 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct
>>> *p, int prev, int target)
>>> if (!sd)
>>> return target;
>>>
>>> - i = select_idle_core(p, sd, target);
>>> - if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>> - return i;
>>> + if (sched_feat(SIS_CORE)) {
>>> + i = select_idle_core(p, sd, target);
>>> + if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>> + return i;
>>> + }
>> This can have significant performance loss if disabled. The select_idle_core
>> spreads
>> workloads quickly across the cores, hence disabling this leaves much of the
>> work to
>> be offloaded to load balancer to move task across the cores. Latency
>> sensitive
>> and long running multi-threaded workload should see the regression under
>> this conditions.
> Yes in case of SPARC SMT8 I did notice that (see cover letter). That's why
> it is a feature that is ON by default, but can be turned OFF for specific
> workloads on x86 SMT2 that can benefit from it.
>> Also, systems like POWER9 has sd_llc as a pair of core only. So it
>> won't benefit from the limits and hence also hiding your code in
>> select_idle_cpu
>> behind static keys will be much preferred.
> If it doesn't hurt then I don't see the point.
>
So these is the result from POWER9 system with your patches:
System configuration: 2 Socket, 44 cores, 176 CPUs
Experiment setup:
===========
=> Setup 1:
- 44 tasks doing just while(1), this is to make select_idle_core return -1 most
times
- perf bench sched messaging -g 1 -l 1000000
+-----------+--------+--------------+--------+
| Baseline | stddev | Patch | stddev |
+-----------+--------+--------------+--------+
| 135 | 3.21 | 158(-17.03%) | 4.69 |
+-----------+--------+--------------+--------+
=> Setup 2:
- schbench -m44 -t 1
+=======+==========+=========+=========+==========+
| %ile | Baseline | stddev | patch | stddev |
+=======+==========+=========+=========+==========+
| 50 | 10 | 3.49 | 10 | 2.29 |
+-------+----------+---------+---------+----------+
| 95 | 467 | 4.47 | 469 | 0.81 |
+-------+----------+---------+---------+----------+
| 99 | 571 | 21.32 | 584 | 18.69 |
+-------+----------+---------+---------+----------+
| 99.5 | 629 | 30.05 | 641 | 20.95 |
+-------+----------+---------+---------+----------+
| 99.9 | 780 | 40.38 | 773 | 44.2 |
+-------+----------+---------+---------+----------+
I guess it doesn't make much difference in schbench results but hackbench (perf
bench)
seems to have an observable regression.
Best,
Parth
