lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:22 AM Julien Desfossez
<jdesfossez@digitalocean.com> wrote:
>
> On 12-Jun-2019 05:03:08 PM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> >
> > On 6/12/19 9:33 AM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> > >After reading more traces and trying to understand why only untagged
> > >tasks are starving when there are cpu-intensive tasks running on the
> > >same set of CPUs, we noticed a difference in behavior in ‘pick_task’. In
> > >the case where ‘core_cookie’ is 0, we are supposed to only prefer the
> > >tagged task if it’s priority is higher, but when the priorities are
> > >equal we prefer it as well which causes the starving. ‘pick_task’ is
> > >biased toward selecting its first parameter in case of equality which in
> > >this case was the ‘class_pick’ instead of ‘max’. Reversing the order of
> > >the parameter solves this issue and matches the expected behavior.
> > >
> > >So we can get rid of this vruntime_boost concept.
> > >
> > >We have tested the fix below and it seems to work well with
> > >tagged/untagged tasks.
> > >
> > My 2 DB instance runs with this patch are better with CORESCHED_STALL_FIX
> > than NO_CORESCHED_STALL_FIX in terms of performance, std deviation and
> > idleness. May be enable it by default?
>
> Yes if the fix is approved, we will just remove the option and it will
> always be enabled.
>

sysbench --report-interval option unveiled something.

benchmark setup
-------------------------
two cgroups, cpuset.cpus = 1, 53(one core, two siblings)
sysbench cpu mode, one thread in cgroup1
sysbench memory mode, one thread in cgroup2

no core scheduling
--------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 405.8, std: 0.14%
mem bandwidth MB/s: 5785.7, std: 0.11%

cgroup1 enable core scheduling(cpu mode)
cgroup2 disable core scheduling(memory mode)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 8.7, std: 519.2%
mem bandwidth MB/s: 6263.2, std: 9.3%

cgroup1 disable core scheduling(cpu mode)
cgroup2 enable core scheduling(memory mode)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 468.0 , std: 8.7%
mem bandwidth MB/S: 311.6 , std: 169.1%

cgroup1 enable core scheduling(cpu mode)
cgroup2 enable core scheduling(memory mode)
----------------------------------------------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 76.4 , std: 168.0%
mem bandwidth MB/S: 5388.3 , std: 30.9%

The result looks still unfair, and particularly, the variance is too high,
----sysbench cpu log ----
----snip----
[ 10s ] thds: 1 eps: 296.00 lat (ms,95%): 2.03
[ 11s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 1170.65
[ 12s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 0.00
[ 13s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 0.00
[ 14s ] thds: 1 eps: 295.91 lat (ms,95%): 2.03
[ 15s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 170.48
[ 16s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 2009.23
[ 17s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 995.51
[ 18s ] thds: 1 eps: 296.00 lat (ms,95%): 2.03
[ 19s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 170.48
[ 20s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 2009.23
----snip----

Thanks,
-Aubrey

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-17 04:52    [W:0.126 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site