From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:13:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201021111305.GD2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB41JopBq0CZVvo16N1u+2Smmc1TamJXkbTVj-pRJeHzA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:29:46AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 19:21, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > On a thread wakeup, the change [1] from runnable load average to load
> > average for comparing candidate cores means that recent short-running
> > daemons on the core where a thread ran previously can be considered to
> > have a higher load than the core performing the wakeup, even when the
> > core where the thread ran previously is currently idle. This can
> > cause a thread to migrate, taking the place of some other thread that
> > is about to wake up, and so on. To avoid unnecessary migrations,
> > extend wake_affine_idle to check whether the core where the thread
> > previously ran is currently idle, and if so return that core as the
> > target.
> >
> > [1] commit 11f10e5420f6ce ("sched/fair: Use load instead of runnable
> > load in wakeup path")
> >
> > This particularly has an impact when using passive (intel_cpufreq)
> > power management, where kworkers run every 0.004 seconds on all cores,
> > increasing the likelihood that an idle core will be considered to have
> > a load.
> >
> > The following numbers were obtained with the benchmarking tool
> > hyperfine (https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine) on the NAS parallel
> > benchmarks (https://www.nas.nasa.gov/publications/npb.html). The
> > tests were run on an 80-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8870 v4 @
> > 2.10GHz. Active (intel_pstate) and passive (intel_cpufreq) power
> > management were used. Times are in seconds. All experiments use all
> > 160 hardware threads.
> >
> > v5.9/active v5.9+patch/active
> > bt.C.c 24.725724+-0.962340 23.349608+-1.607214
> > lu.C.x 29.105952+-4.804203 25.249052+-5.561617
> > sp.C.x 31.220696+-1.831335 30.227760+-2.429792
> > ua.C.x 26.606118+-1.767384 25.778367+-1.263850
> >
> > v5.9/passive v5.9+patch/passive
> > bt.C.c 25.330360+-1.028316 23.544036+-1.020189
> > lu.C.x 35.872659+-4.872090 23.719295+-3.883848
> > sp.C.x 32.141310+-2.289541 29.125363+-0.872300
> > ua.C.x 29.024597+-1.667049 25.728888+-1.539772
> >
> > On the smaller data sets (A and B) and on the other NAS benchmarks
> > there is no impact on performance.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
>
> Reviewed-by Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Thanks!
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:13:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201021111305.GD2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB41JopBq0CZVvo16N1u+2Smmc1TamJXkbTVj-pRJeHzA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:29:46AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 19:21, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > On a thread wakeup, the change [1] from runnable load average to load
> > average for comparing candidate cores means that recent short-running
> > daemons on the core where a thread ran previously can be considered to
> > have a higher load than the core performing the wakeup, even when the
> > core where the thread ran previously is currently idle. This can
> > cause a thread to migrate, taking the place of some other thread that
> > is about to wake up, and so on. To avoid unnecessary migrations,
> > extend wake_affine_idle to check whether the core where the thread
> > previously ran is currently idle, and if so return that core as the
> > target.
> >
> > [1] commit 11f10e5420f6ce ("sched/fair: Use load instead of runnable
> > load in wakeup path")
> >
> > This particularly has an impact when using passive (intel_cpufreq)
> > power management, where kworkers run every 0.004 seconds on all cores,
> > increasing the likelihood that an idle core will be considered to have
> > a load.
> >
> > The following numbers were obtained with the benchmarking tool
> > hyperfine (https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine) on the NAS parallel
> > benchmarks (https://www.nas.nasa.gov/publications/npb.html). The
> > tests were run on an 80-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8870 v4 @
> > 2.10GHz. Active (intel_pstate) and passive (intel_cpufreq) power
> > management were used. Times are in seconds. All experiments use all
> > 160 hardware threads.
> >
> > v5.9/active v5.9+patch/active
> > bt.C.c 24.725724+-0.962340 23.349608+-1.607214
> > lu.C.x 29.105952+-4.804203 25.249052+-5.561617
> > sp.C.x 31.220696+-1.831335 30.227760+-2.429792
> > ua.C.x 26.606118+-1.767384 25.778367+-1.263850
> >
> > v5.9/passive v5.9+patch/passive
> > bt.C.c 25.330360+-1.028316 23.544036+-1.020189
> > lu.C.x 35.872659+-4.872090 23.719295+-3.883848
> > sp.C.x 32.141310+-2.289541 29.125363+-0.872300
> > ua.C.x 29.024597+-1.667049 25.728888+-1.539772
> >
> > On the smaller data sets (A and B) and on the other NAS benchmarks
> > there is no impact on performance.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
>
> Reviewed-by Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-21 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 133+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-20 16:37 [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core Julia Lawall
2020-10-20 16:37 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 7:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 7:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 11:13 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-10-21 11:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 12:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 12:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 11:20 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 11:20 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 11:56 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 11:56 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 12:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 12:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 12:42 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 12:42 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 13:43 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 18:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 18:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 18:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 18:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 19:47 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 19:47 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 20:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 20:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-21 18:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 18:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 4:41 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 4:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 10:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 10:59 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 11:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 11:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 12:02 ` default cpufreq gov, was: " Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 12:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 12:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 12:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 14:52 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 14:52 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 14:58 ` Colin Ian King
2020-10-22 14:58 ` Colin Ian King
2020-10-22 15:12 ` Phil Auld
2020-10-22 15:12 ` Phil Auld
2020-10-22 16:35 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 16:35 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 17:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 17:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 20:32 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 20:32 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 20:39 ` Phil Auld
2020-10-22 20:39 ` Phil Auld
2020-10-22 15:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 15:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-22 15:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 15:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 16:29 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 16:29 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-22 20:10 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2020-10-22 20:10 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2020-10-22 20:16 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2020-10-22 20:16 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2020-10-23 7:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-23 7:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-23 17:46 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-10-23 17:46 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-10-26 19:52 ` Fontenot, Nathan
2020-10-26 19:52 ` Fontenot, Nathan
2020-10-22 15:45 ` A L
2020-10-22 15:45 ` A L
2020-10-22 15:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-22 15:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-23 5:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 5:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 16:23 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-22 16:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-23 6:17 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 6:29 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 11:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-23 11:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-23 15:15 ` [PATCH v2] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-23 15:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-27 3:01 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-27 3:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-27 11:11 ` default cpufreq gov, was: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core Qais Yousef
2020-10-27 11:26 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-10-27 11:42 ` Qais Yousef
2020-10-27 11:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-27 11:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 6:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 6:24 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-23 15:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-23 15:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-27 3:01 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-27 3:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-22 11:21 ` AW: " Walter Harms
2020-10-21 12:28 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 12:28 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 12:47 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 12:47 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 12:56 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 12:56 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 13:18 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 13:18 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 13:24 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 13:24 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:08 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 15:08 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 15:18 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:18 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 15:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 15:33 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:33 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 15:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-10-21 17:00 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 17:00 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 17:39 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 17:39 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 13:48 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 13:48 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-21 15:26 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-21 15:26 ` Mel Gorman
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=20201021111305.GD2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Gilles.Muller@inria.fr \
--cc=Julia.Lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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.