lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched, fair: Allow a small degree of load imbalance between SD_NUMA domains v2
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 15:52, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry I sent out v3 before seeing this email as my mail only synchronises
> periodically.
>
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 02:55:00PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > > + } else {
> > >
> > > - /*
> > > - * If there is no overload, we just want to even the number of
> > > - * idle cpus.
> > > - */
> > > - env->migration_type = migrate_task;
> > > - env->imbalance = max_t(long, 0, (local->idle_cpus -
> > > + /*
> > > + * If there is no overload, we just want to even the number of
> > > + * idle cpus.
> > > + */
> > > + env->migration_type = migrate_task;
> > > + env->imbalance = max_t(long, 0, (local->idle_cpus -
> > > busiest->idle_cpus) >> 1);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Consider allowing a small imbalance between NUMA groups */
> > > + if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> > > + long imbalance_adj, imbalance_max;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * imbalance_adj is the allowable degree of imbalance
> > > + * to exist between two NUMA domains. imbalance_pct
> > > + * is used to estimate the number of active tasks
> > > + * needed before memory bandwidth may be as important
> > > + * as memory locality.
> > > + */
> > > + imbalance_adj = (100 / (env->sd->imbalance_pct - 100)) - 1;
> >
> > This looks weird to me because you use imbalance_pct, which is
> > meaningful only compare a ratio, to define a number that will be then
> > compared to a number of tasks without taking into account the weight
> > of the node. So whatever the node size, 32 or 128 CPUs, the
> > imbalance_adj will be the same: 3 with the default imbalance_pct of
> > NUMA level which is 125 AFAICT
> >
>
> The intent in this version was to only cover the low utilisation case
> regardless of the NUMA node size. There were too many corner cases
> where the tradeoff of local memory latency versus local memory bandwidth
> cannot be quantified. See Srikar's report as an example but it's a general
> problem. The use of imbalance_pct was simply to find the smallest number of
> running tasks were (imbalance_pct - 100) would be 1 running task and limit

But using imbalance_pct alone doesn't mean anything. Using similar to the below

busiest->group_weight * (env->sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 100

would be more meaningful

Or you could use the util_avg so you will take into account if the
tasks are short running ones or long running ones

> the patch to address the low utilisation case only. It could be simply
> hard-coded but that would ignore cases where an architecture overrides
> imbalance_pct. I'm open to suggestion on how we could identify the point
> where imbalances can be ignored without hitting other corner cases.
>
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Allow small imbalances when the busiest group has
> > > + * low utilisation.
> > > + */
> > > + imbalance_max = imbalance_adj << 1;
> >
> > Why do you add this shift ?
> >
>
> For very low utilisation, there is no balancing between nodes. For slightly
> above that, there is limited balancing. After that, the load balancing
> behaviour is unchanged as I believe we cannot determine if memory latency
> or memory bandwidth is more important for arbitrary workloads.
>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-07 09:39    [W:0.101 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site