From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149% ftq.noise.50% regression
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 12:37:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170103113759.GA30094@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfdd7004-efe0-1b90-2359-a08092c1fbe1@arm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5202 bytes --]
Hi Dietmar and Ying,
Le Tuesday 03 Jan 2017 à 11:38:39 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
> Hi Vincent and Ying,
>
> On 01/02/2017 04:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >Hi Ying,
> >
> >On 28 December 2016 at 09:17, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> >>Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
> >>
> >>>Le Tuesday 13 Dec 2016 . 09:47:30 (+0800), Huang, Ying a .crit :
> >>>>Hi, Vincent,
> >>>>
> >>>>Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
[snip]
> >>
> >>The test result is as follow,
> >>
> >>=========================================================================================
> >>compiler/cpufreq_governor/freq/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/samples/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> >> gcc-6/powersave/20/x86_64-rhel-7.2/100%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/6000ss/lkp-hsw-d01/cache/ftq
> >>
> >>commit:
> >> 4e5160766fcc9f41bbd38bac11f92dce993644aa: first bad commit
> >> 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6ddf1fd685692d49: parent of first bad commit
> >> 0613870ea53a7a279d8d37f2a3ce40aafc155fc8: debug commit with above patch
> >>
> >>4e5160766fcc9f41 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6d 0613870ea53a7a279d8d37f2a3
> >>---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
> >> %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
> >> \ | \ | \
> >> 61670 ±228% -96.5% 2148 ± 11% -94.7% 3281 ± 58% ftq.noise.25%
> >> 3463 ± 10% -60.0% 1386 ± 19% -26.3% 2552 ± 58% ftq.noise.50%
> >> 1116 ± 23% -72.6% 305.99 ± 30% -35.8% 716.15 ± 64% ftq.noise.75%
> >> 3843815 ± 3% +3.1% 3963589 ± 1% -49.6% 1938221 ±100% ftq.time.involuntary_context_switches
> >> 5.33 ± 30% +21.4% 6.46 ± 14% -71.7% 1.50 ±108% time.system_time
> >>
> >>
> >>It appears that the system_time and involuntary_context_switches reduced
> >>much after applied the debug patch, which is good from noise point of
> >>view. ftq.noise.50% reduced compared with the first bad commit, but
> >>have not restored to that of the parent of the first bad commit.
> >
> >Thanks for testing. I will try to improve it a bit but not sure that I
> >can reduce more.
>
> Is this a desktop system where this regression comes from autogroups (1
> level taskgroups) or a server system with systemd (2 level taskgroups)?
>
> Since the PELT rewrite (v4.2) I have ~60 autogroups per cpu
> (&rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list) on my Ubuntu desktop system permanently (Intel
> i7-4750HQ) whereas in v4.1 there were 0 - 10.
>
> $ for i in `seq 0 7`; do cat /proc/sched_debug | grep
> "cfs_rq\[$i\]:/autogroup-" | wc -l; done
> 58
> 61
> 63
> 65
> 60
> 59
> 62
> 56
>
> Couldn't we still remove these autogroups by if (!cfs_rq->nr_running &&
> !se->avg.load_avg && !se->avg.util_avg) in update_blocked_averages()?
>
> Vincent, like we discussed in September last year, the proper fix would
> probably be a cfs-rq->nr_attached which IMHO is not doable w/o being an
> atomic because of migrate_task_rq_fair()->remove_entity_load_avg() not
> holding the rq lock.
I remember the discussion and even if I agree that a large number of taskgroup
increases the number of loop in update_blocked_averages() and as a result the
time spent in the update, I don't think that this is the root cause of
this regression because the patch "sched/fair: Propagate asynchrous detach"
doesn't add more loops to update_blocked_averages but it adds more thing to do
per loop.
Then, I think I'm still too conservative in the condition for calling
update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0). This call has been added to
propagate gcfs_rq->propagate_avg flag to parent so we don't need to call it
even if load_avg is not null but only when propagate_avg flag is set. The
patch below should improve thing compare to the previous version because
it will call update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0) only if an asynchrounous
detach happened (propagate_avg is set).
Ying, could you test the patch below instead of the previous one ?
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6559d19..a4f5c35 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6915,6 +6915,7 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
{
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
+ struct sched_entity *se;
unsigned long flags;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
@@ -6932,9 +6933,10 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
if (update_cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq_clock_task(cfs_rq), cfs_rq, true))
update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq, 0);
- /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent */
- if (cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu])
- update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0);
+ /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent if any */
+ se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu];
+ if (se && cfs_rq->propagate_avg)
+ update_load_avg(se, 0);
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
}
--
2.7.4
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149% ftq.noise.50% regression
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:37:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170103113759.GA30094@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfdd7004-efe0-1b90-2359-a08092c1fbe1@arm.com>
Hi Dietmar and Ying,
Le Tuesday 03 Jan 2017 à 11:38:39 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
> Hi Vincent and Ying,
>
> On 01/02/2017 04:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >Hi Ying,
> >
> >On 28 December 2016 at 09:17, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> >>Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
> >>
> >>>Le Tuesday 13 Dec 2016 . 09:47:30 (+0800), Huang, Ying a .crit :
> >>>>Hi, Vincent,
> >>>>
> >>>>Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
[snip]
> >>
> >>The test result is as follow,
> >>
> >>=========================================================================================
> >>compiler/cpufreq_governor/freq/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/samples/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> >> gcc-6/powersave/20/x86_64-rhel-7.2/100%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/6000ss/lkp-hsw-d01/cache/ftq
> >>
> >>commit:
> >> 4e5160766fcc9f41bbd38bac11f92dce993644aa: first bad commit
> >> 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6ddf1fd685692d49: parent of first bad commit
> >> 0613870ea53a7a279d8d37f2a3ce40aafc155fc8: debug commit with above patch
> >>
> >>4e5160766fcc9f41 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6d 0613870ea53a7a279d8d37f2a3
> >>---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
> >> %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
> >> \ | \ | \
> >> 61670 ±228% -96.5% 2148 ± 11% -94.7% 3281 ± 58% ftq.noise.25%
> >> 3463 ± 10% -60.0% 1386 ± 19% -26.3% 2552 ± 58% ftq.noise.50%
> >> 1116 ± 23% -72.6% 305.99 ± 30% -35.8% 716.15 ± 64% ftq.noise.75%
> >> 3843815 ± 3% +3.1% 3963589 ± 1% -49.6% 1938221 ±100% ftq.time.involuntary_context_switches
> >> 5.33 ± 30% +21.4% 6.46 ± 14% -71.7% 1.50 ±108% time.system_time
> >>
> >>
> >>It appears that the system_time and involuntary_context_switches reduced
> >>much after applied the debug patch, which is good from noise point of
> >>view. ftq.noise.50% reduced compared with the first bad commit, but
> >>have not restored to that of the parent of the first bad commit.
> >
> >Thanks for testing. I will try to improve it a bit but not sure that I
> >can reduce more.
>
> Is this a desktop system where this regression comes from autogroups (1
> level taskgroups) or a server system with systemd (2 level taskgroups)?
>
> Since the PELT rewrite (v4.2) I have ~60 autogroups per cpu
> (&rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list) on my Ubuntu desktop system permanently (Intel
> i7-4750HQ) whereas in v4.1 there were 0 - 10.
>
> $ for i in `seq 0 7`; do cat /proc/sched_debug | grep
> "cfs_rq\[$i\]:/autogroup-" | wc -l; done
> 58
> 61
> 63
> 65
> 60
> 59
> 62
> 56
>
> Couldn't we still remove these autogroups by if (!cfs_rq->nr_running &&
> !se->avg.load_avg && !se->avg.util_avg) in update_blocked_averages()?
>
> Vincent, like we discussed in September last year, the proper fix would
> probably be a cfs-rq->nr_attached which IMHO is not doable w/o being an
> atomic because of migrate_task_rq_fair()->remove_entity_load_avg() not
> holding the rq lock.
I remember the discussion and even if I agree that a large number of taskgroup
increases the number of loop in update_blocked_averages() and as a result the
time spent in the update, I don't think that this is the root cause of
this regression because the patch "sched/fair: Propagate asynchrous detach"
doesn't add more loops to update_blocked_averages but it adds more thing to do
per loop.
Then, I think I'm still too conservative in the condition for calling
update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0). This call has been added to
propagate gcfs_rq->propagate_avg flag to parent so we don't need to call it
even if load_avg is not null but only when propagate_avg flag is set. The
patch below should improve thing compare to the previous version because
it will call update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0) only if an asynchrounous
detach happened (propagate_avg is set).
Ying, could you test the patch below instead of the previous one ?
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6559d19..a4f5c35 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6915,6 +6915,7 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
{
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
+ struct sched_entity *se;
unsigned long flags;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
@@ -6932,9 +6933,10 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
if (update_cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq_clock_task(cfs_rq), cfs_rq, true))
update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq, 0);
- /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent */
- if (cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu])
- update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0);
+ /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent if any */
+ se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu];
+ if (se && cfs_rq->propagate_avg)
+ update_load_avg(se, 0);
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
}
--
2.7.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-03 11:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-12 5:43 [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149% ftq.noise.50% regression kernel test robot
2016-12-12 5:43 ` kernel test robot
2016-12-12 13:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-12 13:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-13 1:47 ` Huang, Ying
2016-12-13 1:47 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-12-22 15:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-22 15:12 ` [LKP] " Vincent Guittot
2016-12-28 8:17 ` Huang, Ying
2016-12-28 8:17 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2017-01-02 15:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-01-02 15:42 ` [LKP] " Vincent Guittot
2017-01-03 10:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-01-03 10:38 ` [LKP] " Dietmar Eggemann
2017-01-03 11:37 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2017-01-03 11:37 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-01-04 3:08 ` Huang, Ying
2017-01-04 3:08 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2017-01-04 14:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-01-04 14:06 ` [LKP] " Vincent Guittot
2017-02-21 2:40 ` Huang, Ying
2017-02-21 2:40 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2017-02-27 9:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-02-27 9:44 ` [LKP] " Vincent Guittot
2017-02-28 0:33 ` Huang, Ying
2017-02-28 0:33 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2017-02-28 9:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-02-28 9:35 ` [LKP] " Vincent Guittot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170103113759.GA30094@linaro.org \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.