From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc/smp: Add SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag to MC sched-domain
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:37:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210412093722.GS3697@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210412062436.GB2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:54:36AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2021-04-02 11:07:54]:
>
> >
> > To remedy this, this patch proposes that the LLC be moved to the MC
> > level which is a group of cores in one half of the chip.
> >
> > SMT (SMT4) --> MC (Hemisphere)[LLC] --> DIE
> >
>
> I think marking Hemisphere as a LLC in a P10 scenario is a good idea.
>
> > While there is no cache being shared at this level, this is still the
> > level where some amount of cache-snooping takes place and it is
> > relatively faster to access the data from the caches of the cores
> > within this domain. With this change, we no longer see regressions on
> > P10 for applications which require single threaded performance.
>
> Peter, Valentin, Vincent, Mel, etal
>
> On architectures where we have multiple levels of cache access latencies
> within a DIE, (For example: one within the current LLC or SMT core and the
> other at MC or Hemisphere, and finally across hemispheres), do you have any
> suggestions on how we could handle the same in the core scheduler?
>
Minimally I think it would be worth detecting when there are multiple
LLCs per node and detecting that in generic code as a static branch. In
select_idle_cpu, consider taking two passes -- first on the LLC domain
and if no idle CPU is found then taking a second pass if the search depth
allows within the node with the LLC CPUs masked out. While there would be
a latency hit because cache is not shared, it would still be a CPU local
to memory that is idle. That would potentially be beneficial on Zen*
as well without having to introduce new domains in the topology hierarchy.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@ozlabs.org>,
Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc/smp: Add SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag to MC sched-domain
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:37:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210412093722.GS3697@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210412062436.GB2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:54:36AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2021-04-02 11:07:54]:
>
> >
> > To remedy this, this patch proposes that the LLC be moved to the MC
> > level which is a group of cores in one half of the chip.
> >
> > SMT (SMT4) --> MC (Hemisphere)[LLC] --> DIE
> >
>
> I think marking Hemisphere as a LLC in a P10 scenario is a good idea.
>
> > While there is no cache being shared at this level, this is still the
> > level where some amount of cache-snooping takes place and it is
> > relatively faster to access the data from the caches of the cores
> > within this domain. With this change, we no longer see regressions on
> > P10 for applications which require single threaded performance.
>
> Peter, Valentin, Vincent, Mel, etal
>
> On architectures where we have multiple levels of cache access latencies
> within a DIE, (For example: one within the current LLC or SMT core and the
> other at MC or Hemisphere, and finally across hemispheres), do you have any
> suggestions on how we could handle the same in the core scheduler?
>
Minimally I think it would be worth detecting when there are multiple
LLCs per node and detecting that in generic code as a static branch. In
select_idle_cpu, consider taking two passes -- first on the LLC domain
and if no idle CPU is found then taking a second pass if the search depth
allows within the node with the LLC CPUs masked out. While there would be
a latency hit because cache is not shared, it would still be a CPU local
to memory that is idle. That would potentially be beneficial on Zen*
as well without having to introduce new domains in the topology hierarchy.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-12 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-02 5:37 [RFC/PATCH] powerpc/smp: Add SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag to MC sched-domain Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-04-02 5:37 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2021-04-02 7:36 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-04-02 7:36 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-04-12 6:24 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2021-04-12 6:24 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2021-04-12 9:37 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2021-04-12 9:37 ` Mel Gorman
2021-04-12 10:06 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-04-12 10:06 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-04-12 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
2021-04-12 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
2021-04-19 6:14 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-04-19 6:14 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-04-12 12:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-12 12:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-12 15:24 ` Mel Gorman
2021-04-12 15:24 ` Mel Gorman
2021-04-12 16:33 ` Michal Suchánek
2021-04-12 16:33 ` Michal Suchánek
2021-04-14 7:02 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-04-14 7:02 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-04-13 7:10 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-13 7:10 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-14 7:00 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-04-14 7:00 ` Gautham R Shenoy
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=20210412093722.GS3697@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--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.