From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f43.google.com (mail-lf1-f43.google.com [209.85.167.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506B065BD1 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706612816; cv=none; b=lrd/hEBP4oiYBB1YaSoRgl6iIGgN5wJevRu3xmpkTKGxM6ckPGiW5V8QqOwzVkflZdItIesayPK0Z3dcImxbh55V0NABsjq/1Ae0FIYRmbxF9KH4HPueZAFiNWKYajfKlGVb6uNNOc0KtfwY3sm0J/lexul3KVk6qAlbaWbMDoQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706612816; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hogLsIU8QyBle6ByPh7xU44JzCwWuwPv8m3lUzxkdBs=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=HldG0cudMus5esXSS84YlC5jCnhPPd2TUs/pfePpZMP7Kvt93W8j0rQOU8a/WJK83U0BKbjMDREZEkcmnJr3YwCfoSRZZHAbLrvpdXap8PJjAfUPwY1ds7BFa6iVQaxGti4jkyvL0cWAq2II+WZ8ZY+sQRIjeywXWdiujkZKbus= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=Y5IWTat+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Y5IWTat+" Received: by mail-lf1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-510218c4a0eso4351653e87.1 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:06:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706612812; x=1707217612; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=w+lzeFwzBlDJQfNTv+qZ4opBV1Z6HDBYd/f6TJuREDM=; b=Y5IWTat+ZdZ9Vn5gsWTwc9OO1ryh2PuggwGti0pO0GPg2TAXW746KgisNSwj3y47ZO eDLaWl/1LNGGsS1d/N4Q0yAeNbPF75QQTBZu2UjHQ/llPehDN44znvxnUsP1FhgCxJyP 97Q8HWDwOjs1rx8Qa1K4X63R+8dbZ8I8kWt2wRUCiiFqZAZ73Uce1rzlHyilF/OVnfER kV2Jsxu1TsweMb99fxa3KGJnuCeDauno6kuq9xvYKS3TSEXBAT3KALzZ21cPBr16aczi IB38CRUqumenvkmMtTljs2Mj7i2H7dzek+nds8WV8aj3siSMgtLOBQ6IGq6fijowHkLI PGvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706612812; x=1707217612; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=w+lzeFwzBlDJQfNTv+qZ4opBV1Z6HDBYd/f6TJuREDM=; b=dkfk9NCe43HPzuWh/aNbI23DmvefsRzFAp/rObZldyUnCOHJkN3JarjBcuNbnpwiJ1 WqGQFTxKKXKUHkp4vnbU25gDRi8NKNapKPfPuaS5MtXHWBbt3b5rJ2mgBjPiOYg0+8Hb Nk5SBzpWKFBfB3nC/Kh5AwYHsFrQ2XqgK5MBZ7rHGzg4xs4LeB+wJv+LvvLxDCbTX65i OyDoc4HlAjK2zaZO2Vo/A1GvhMzVljtOVNzv97J9fhXCgesjOTX9XMjL3fIx9/HaMwua Li2LO5WkiAAHp10ZA+bBqztXNb2cTzSTvyqzmnbL7LPQGlG6Ei8bZKtzioAUe5gwIsS8 dNNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzZX7e8ikl1EQAJTpD+JPwxnFGivfV+VJud7gfDCeXPuothdytX l5Ymqs9zA6Mht52Y1bXlD1WsRF89OeWFqJQyjEypc0Zpa/w281jR X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFQquVg6J8izEu9FKfABdecORagWrz5/1Obmd+nyIOcsnk+4ac+/n39W+rw7uhygsSXNBvA8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3904:b0:510:1818:4f14 with SMTP id a4-20020a056512390400b0051018184f14mr386701lfu.30.1706612811740; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:06:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-198-33.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.198.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u25-20020a05651220d900b0051119371e7csm233199lfr.120.2024.01.30.03.06.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:06:51 -0800 (PST) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:06:49 +0100 To: "Paul E. McKenney" , Andrea Righi Cc: Andrea Righi , Joel Fernandes , Joel Fernandes , rcu@vger.kernel.org, "Cc: Frederic Weisbecker" Subject: Re: Observation on NOHZ_FULL Message-ID: References: <6a2b6857-57e7-4321-adae-132ba69a4fff@paulmck-laptop> <0e15e91e-da47-45dd-b7de-7f89b7b6002b@joelfernandes.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 02:17:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:58:18AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > > Hi Joel and Paul, > > > > comments below. > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 05:16:38PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > On 1/29/2024 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 05:47:39PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > >> Hi Guys, > > > >> Something caught my eye in [1] which a colleague pointed me to > > > >> - CONFIG_HZ=1000 : 14866.05 bogo ops/s > > > >> - CONFIG_HZ=1000+nohz_full : 18505.52 bogo ops/s > > > >> > > > >> The test in concern is: > > > >> stress-ng --matrix $(getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN) --timeout 5m --metrics-brief > > > >> > > > >> which is a CPU intensive test. > > > >> > > > >> Any thoughts on what else can attribute a 30% performance increase > > > >> versus non-nohz_full ? (Confession: No idea if the baseline is > > > >> nohz_idle or no nohz at all). If it is 30%, I may want to evaluate > > > >> nohz_full on some of our limited-CPU devices :) > > > > > > > > The usual questions. ;-) > > > > > > > > Is this repeatable? Is it under the same conditions of temperature, > > > > load, and so on? Was it running on bare metal or on a guest OS? If on a > > > > guest OS, what was the load from other guest OSes on the same hypervisor > > > > or on the hypervisor itself? > > > > That was the result of a quick test, so I expect it has some fuzzyness > > in there. > > > > It's an average of 10 runs, it was bare metal (my laptop, 8 cores 11th > > Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1195G7 @ 2.90GHz), *but* I wanted to run the > > test with the default Ubuntu settings, that means having "power mode: > > balanced" enabled. I don't know exactly what it's doing (I'll check how > > it works in details), I think it's using intel p-states IIRC. > > > > Also, the system was not completely isolated (my email client was > > running) but the system was mostly idle in general. > > > > I was already planning to repeat the tests in a more "isolated" > > environment and add details to the bug tracker. > > > > > > > > > > The bug report ad "CONFIG_HZ=250 : 17415.60 bogo ops/s", which makes > > > > me wonder if someone enabled some heavy debug that is greatly > > > > increasing the overhead of the scheduling-clock interrupt. > > > > > > > > Now, if that was the case, I would expect the 250HZ number to have > > > > three-quarters of the improvement of the nohz_full number compared > > > > to the 1000HZ number: > > > >> 17415.60-14866.05=2549.55 > > > > 18505.52-14866.05=3639.47 > > > > > > > > 2549.55/3639.47=0.70 > > > > > > I wonder if the difference here could possibly also be because of CPU idle > > > governor. It may behave differently at differently clock rates so perhaps has > > > different overhead. > > > > Could be, but, again, the balanced power mode could play a major role > > here. > > > > > > > > I have added trying nohz full to my list as well to evaluate. FWIW, when we > > > moved from 250HZ to 1000HZ, it actually improved power because the CPUidle > > > governor could put the CPUs in deeper idle states more quickly! > > > > Interesting, another benefit to add to my proposal. :) > > > > > > > > > OK, 0.70 is not *that* far off of 0.75. So what debugging does that > > > > test have enabled? Also, if you use tracing (or whatever) to measure > > > > the typical duration of the scheduling-clock interrupt and related things > > > > like softirq handlers, does it fit with these numbers? Such a measurment > > > > would look at how long it took to get back into userspace. > > Just to emphasize... > > The above calculations show that your measurements are close to what you > would expect if scheduling-clock interrupts took longer than one would > expect. Here "scheduling-clock interrupts" includes softirq processing > (timers, networking, RCU, ...) that piggybacks on each such interrupt. > > Although softirq makes the most sense given the amount of time that must > be consumed, for the most part softirq work is conserved. which suggests > that you should also at the rest of the system to check whether the > reported speedup is instead due to this work simply being moved to some > other CPU. > > But maybe the fat softirqs are due to some debugging option that Ubuntu > enabled. In which case checking up on the actual duration (perhaps > using some form of tracing) would provide useful information. ;-) > As a first step i would have a look at perf figures what is going on during a test run. For such purpose the "perf" tool can be used. As a basic step it can be run in a "top" mode: perf top -a -g -e cycles:k Sorry for the noise :) -- Uladzislau Rezki