From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com,
dhaval.giani@oracle.com, rohit.k.jain@oracle.com,
umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk,
riel@surriel.com, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 08/11] sched/fair: Optimize SIS_FOLD
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 16:22:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180530143106.291552903@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20180530142236.667774973@infradead.org
[-- Attachment #1: peterz-sis-again-11.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2492 bytes --]
Tracing showed that the per-cpu scanning cost of __select_idle_core()
(~120ns) was significantly higher than that of __select_idle_cpu()
(~40ns).
This means that, even when reduced to the minimal scan, we're still 3x
more expensive than the simple search.
perf annotate suggested this was mostly due to cache-misses on the
additional cpumasks used.
However, we can mitigate this by only doing the more expensive search
when there is a good chance it is beneficial. After all, when there
are no idle cores to be had, there's no point in looking for any
(SMT>2 might want to try without this).
Clearing has_idle_cores early (without an exhaustive search) should be
fine because we're eager to set it when a core goes idle again.
FOLD
1: 0.568188455 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.40% )
2: 0.643264625 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.27% )
5: 2.385378263 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.12% )
10: 3.808555491 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.46% )
20: 6.431994272 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.21% )
40: 9.423539507 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.07% )
FOLD+
1: 0.554694881 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.42% )
2: 0.632730119 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.84% )
5: 2.230432464 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.17% )
10: 3.549957778 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.55% )
20: 6.118364255 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.72% )
40: 9.515406550 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.74% )
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 ++++-
kernel/sched/features.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6382,6 +6382,8 @@ static int __select_idle_core(struct tas
}
}
+ set_idle_cores(target, 0);
+
return best_cpu;
}
@@ -6477,7 +6479,8 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_s
time = local_clock();
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
- if (sched_feat(SIS_FOLD) && static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present))
+ if (sched_feat(SIS_FOLD) && static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present) &&
+ test_idle_cores(target, false))
cpu = __select_idle_core(p, sd, target, nr, &loops);
else
#endif
--- a/kernel/sched/features.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ SCHED_FEAT(SIS_PROP, true)
SCHED_FEAT(SIS_AGE, true)
SCHED_FEAT(SIS_ONCE, true)
-SCHED_FEAT(SIS_FOLD, false)
+SCHED_FEAT(SIS_FOLD, true)
/*
* Issue a WARN when we do multiple update_rq_clock() calls
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-30 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-30 14:22 [RFC 00/11] select_idle_sibling rework Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 01/11] sched/fair: Fix select_idle_cpu()s cost accounting Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-22 8:30 ` [lkp-robot] [sched/fair] a4e1c9c190: unixbench.score 1.8% improvement kernel test robot
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 02/11] sched/fair: Age the average idle time Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 03/11] sched/fair: Only use time once Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 04/11] sched/topology: Introduce sched_domain_cores() Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 05/11] sched/fair: Re-arrange select_idle_cpu() Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 06/11] sched/fair: Make select_idle_cpu() proportional to cores Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 07/11] sched/fair: Fold the select_idle_sibling() scans Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-06-13 5:21 ` [lkp-robot] [sched/fair] 89754410a3: vm-scalability.throughput 49.2% improvement kernel test robot
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 09/11] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_PROP Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 10/11] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AGE/SIS_ONCE Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 11/11] sched/fair: Remove SIS_FOLD Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-19 22:06 ` [RFC 00/11] select_idle_sibling rework Matt Fleming
2018-06-20 22:20 ` Steven Sistare
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=20180530143106.291552903@infradead.org \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rohit.k.jain@oracle.com \
--cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
/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.