lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 00/10] steal tasks to improve CPU utilization
From
Date
On 12/7/2018 3:30 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On 06/12/2018 21:28, Steve Sistare wrote:
>> When a CPU has no more CFS tasks to run, and idle_balance() fails to
>> find a task, then attempt to steal a task from an overloaded CPU in the
>> same LLC. Maintain and use a bitmap of overloaded CPUs to efficiently
>> identify candidates. To minimize search time, steal the first migratable
>> task that is found when the bitmap is traversed. For fairness, search
>> for migratable tasks on an overloaded CPU in order of next to run.
>>
>> This simple stealing yields a higher CPU utilization than idle_balance()
>> alone, because the search is cheap, so it may be called every time the CPU
>> is about to go idle. idle_balance() does more work because it searches
>> widely for the busiest queue, so to limit its CPU consumption, it declines
>> to search if the system is too busy. Simple stealing does not offload the
>> globally busiest queue, but it is much better than running nothing at all.
>>
>> The bitmap of overloaded CPUs is a new type of sparse bitmap, designed to
>> reduce cache contention vs the usual bitmap when many threads concurrently
>> set, clear, and visit elements.
>>
>> Patch 1 defines the sparsemask type and its operations.
>>
>> Patches 2, 3, and 4 implement the bitmap of overloaded CPUs.
>>
>> Patches 5 and 6 refactor existing code for a cleaner merge of later
>> patches.
>>
>> Patches 7 and 8 implement task stealing using the overloaded CPUs bitmap.
>>
>> Patch 9 disables stealing on systems with more than 2 NUMA nodes for the
>> time being because of performance regressions that are not due to stealing
>> per-se. See the patch description for details.
>>
>> Patch 10 adds schedstats for comparing the new behavior to the old, and
>> provided as a convenience for developers only, not for integration.
>>
> [...]
>
> I've run my usual tests ([1]) on my HiKey960 with
>
> - Just stealing (only misfit tests)
> - Stealing rebased on top of EAS (misfit + EAS tests), and with stealing
> gated by:
>
> ----->8-----
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 17ab4db..8b5172f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7152,7 +7152,8 @@ done: __maybe_unused;
> rq_idle_stamp_update(rq);
>
> new_tasks = idle_balance(rq, rf);
> - if (new_tasks == 0)
> + if (new_tasks == 0 &&
> + (!static_key_unlikely(&sched_energy_present) || READ_ONCE(rq->rd->overutilized))
> new_tasks = try_steal(rq, rf);
>
> if (new_tasks)
> -----8<-----
>
> It all looks good from my end - if things were to go wrong on big.LITTLE
> platforms it'd be here. It might be a convoluted way of using this tag,
> but you can have my
>
> Tested-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
>
> as a "it doesn't break my stuff" seal.
>
> As far as the patches go, with my last comments in mind it looks good to me
> so you can also have:
>
> Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
>
> for patches [2-8]. I haven't delved on the sparsemask details. As for patch
> 9, you might want to run other benchmarks (Peter suggested specjbb) to see
> if it is truly need.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/ARM-software/lisa/tree/next/lisa/tests/kernel/scheduler

Hi Valentin, thanks for all your testing and review, I appreciate it - Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-07 23:38    [W:0.284 / U:22.476 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site