lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched, fair: Allow a small degree of load imbalance between SD_NUMA domains v2
From
Date
On 20/12/2019 08:42, Mel Gorman wrote:
> In general, the patch simply seeks to avoid unnecessarily cross-node
> migrations when a machine is lightly loaded but shows benefits for other
> workloads. While tests are still running, so far it seems to benefit
> light-utilisation smaller workloads on large machines and does not appear
> to do any harm to larger or parallelised workloads.
>
> [valentin.schneider@arm.com: Reformat code flow, correct comment, use idle_cpus]

I think only the comment bit is still there in this version and it's not
really worth mentioning (but I do thank you for doing it!).

> @@ -8671,6 +8667,39 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
> return;
> }
>
> + /* Consider allowing a small imbalance between NUMA groups */
> + if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> + unsigned int imbalance_adj, imbalance_max;
> +
> + /*
> + * imbalance_adj is the allowable degree of imbalance
> + * to exist between two NUMA domains. It's calculated
> + * relative to imbalance_pct with a minimum of two
> + * tasks or idle CPUs. The choice of two is due to
> + * the most basic case of two communicating tasks
> + * that should remain on the same NUMA node after
> + * wakeup.
> + */
> + imbalance_adj = max(2U, (busiest->group_weight *
> + (env->sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 100) >> 1);
> +
> + /*
> + * Ignore small imbalances unless the busiest sd has
> + * almost half as many busy CPUs as there are
> + * available CPUs in the busiest group. Note that

This is all on the busiest group, so this should be more like:

* Ignore small imbalances unless almost half of the
* busiest sg's CPUs are busy.

> + * it is not exactly half as imbalance_adj must be
> + * accounted for or the two domains do not converge
> + * as equally balanced if the number of busy tasks is
> + * roughly the size of one NUMA domain.
> + */
> + imbalance_max = (busiest->group_weight >> 1) + imbalance_adj;
> + if (env->imbalance <= imbalance_adj &&

I'm confused now, have we set env->imbalance to anything at this point? AIUI
Vincent's suggestion was to hinge this purely on the weight vs idle_cpus /
nr_running, IOW not use imbalance:

if (sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
imbalance_adj = max(2U, (busiest->group_weight *
(env->sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 100) >> 1);
imbalance_max = (busiest->group_weight >> 1) + imbalance_adj;

if (busiest->idle_cpus >= imbalance_max) {
env->imbalance = 0;
return;
}
}

Now, I have to say I'm not sold on the idle_cpus thing, I'd much rather use
the number of runnable tasks. We are setting up a threshold for how far we
are willing to ignore imbalances; if we have overloaded CPUs we *really*
should try to solve this. Number of tasks is the safer option IMO: when we
do have one task per CPU, it'll be the same as if we had used idle_cpus, and
when we don't have one task per CPU we'll load-balance more often that we
would have with idle_cpus.

> + busiest->idle_cpus >= imbalance_max) {
> + env->imbalance = 0;
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +
> if (busiest->group_weight == 1 || sds->prefer_sibling) {
> unsigned int nr_diff = busiest->sum_nr_running;
> /*
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-20 13:40    [W:0.082 / U:6.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site