[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC V2 2/2] sched/fair: Fallback to sched-idle CPU if idle CPU isn't found

On 5/14/19 10:27 AM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> On 5/14/19 9:03 AM, Steven Sistare wrote:
>> On 5/13/2019 7:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 03:04:18PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> On 10-05-19, 09:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> I don't hate his per se; but the whole select_idle_sibling() thing is
>>>>> something that needs looking at.
>>>>> There was the task stealing thing from Steve that looked
>>>>> interesting and
>>>>> that would render your apporach unfeasible.
>>>> I am surely missing something as I don't see how that patchset will
>>>> make this patchset perform badly, than what it already does.
>>> Nah; I just misremembered. I know Oracle has a patch set poking at
>>> select_idle_siblings() _somewhere_ (as do I), and I just found the
>>> wrong
>>> one.
>>> Basically everybody is complaining select_idle_sibling() is too
>>> expensive for checking the entire LLC domain, except for FB (and thus
>>> likely some other workloads too) that depend on it to kill their tail
>>> latency.
>>> But I suppose we could still do this, even if we scan only a subset of
>>> the LLC, just keep track of the last !idle CPU running only SCHED_IDLE
>>> tasks and pick that if you do not (in your limited scan) find a better
>>> candidate.
>> Subhra posted a patch that incrementally searches for an idle CPU in
>> the LLC,
>> remembering the last CPU examined, and searching a fixed number of
>> CPUs from there.
>> That technique is compatible with the one that Viresh suggests; the
>> incremental
>> search would stop if a SCHED_IDLE cpu was found.
> This was the last version of patchset I sent:
> Also select_idle_core is a net -ve for certain workloads like OLTP. So I
> had put a SCHED_FEAT to be able to disable it.
Forgot to add, the cpumask_weight computation may not be O(1) with large
number of CPUs, so needs to be precomputed in a per-cpu variable to further
optimize. That part is missing from the above patchset.
> Thanks,
> Subhra
>> I also fiddled with select_idle_sibling, maintaining a per-LLC bitmap
>> of idle CPUs,
>> updated with atomic operations.  Performance was basically unchanged
>> for the
>> workloads I tested, and I inserted timers around the idle search
>> showing it was
>> a very small fraction of time both before and after my changes.  That
>> led me to
>> ignore the push side and optimize the pull side with task stealing.
>> I would be very interested in hearing from folks that have workloads
>> that demonstrate
>> that select_idle_sibling is too expensive.
>> - Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-14 19:42    [W:0.037 / U:35.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site