From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: e45141a1a64d7dcfca2683f56735ba4da60ba19e.camel@linux.intel.com
Cc: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
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>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com>,
Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@foxmail.com>,
Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] sched: Inhibit cache aware scheduling if the preferred LLC is over aggregated
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 10:29:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0a574da2c69e6bd607e20c5865d3b66fb9329e6d.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f02e2c1a-e65f-4078-a138-ccf734f84643@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, 2025-04-25 at 14:43 +0530, Madadi Vineeth Reddy wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 24/04/25 21:21, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-04-24 at 22:11 +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > >
> > > > It spawns lot of threads and is CPU intensive. So, I think it's not impacted
> > > > due to the below conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Also, in schbench numbers provided by you, there is a degradation in saturated
> > > > case. Is it due to the overhead in computing the preferred llc which is not
> > > > being used due to below conditions?
> > >
> > > Yes, the overhead of preferred LLC calculation could be one part, and we
> > > also suspect that the degradation might be tied to the task migrations.
> > > We still observed more task migrations than the baseline, even when the
> > > system was saturated (in theory, after 25% is exceeded, we should
> > > fallback to the generic task wakeup path). We haven't dug into that yet,
> > > and we can conduct an investigation in the following days.
> >
> > In the saturation case it is mostly the tail latency that has regression.
> > The preferred LLC has a tendency to have higher load than the
> > other LLCs. Load balancer will try to move tasks out and wake balance will
> > try to move it back to the preferred LLC. This increases the task migrations
> > and affect tail latency.
>
> Why would the task be moved back to the preferred LLC in wakeup path for the
> saturated case? The checks shouldn't allow it right?
The task wake ups happens very frequently in schbench and it takes a while for utilization to catch
up. The utilization of the LLC is updated at the load balance time of LLC.
So once utilization falls below the utilization threshold, there is a window
where the woken tasks will rush into the preferred LLC until the utilization
is updated at the next load balance time.
Tim
>
> Thanks,
> Madadi Vineeth Reddy
>
> >
> > Tim
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-25 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-21 3:23 [RFC PATCH 0/5] sched: Introduce Cache aware scheduling Chen Yu
2025-04-21 3:24 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] sched: Cache aware load-balancing Chen Yu
2025-04-21 3:24 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] sched: Several fixes for cache aware scheduling Chen Yu
2025-04-21 3:25 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] sched: Avoid task migration within its preferred LLC Chen Yu
2025-04-21 3:25 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] sched: Inhibit cache aware scheduling if the preferred LLC is over aggregated Chen Yu
2025-04-24 9:22 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-04-24 14:11 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-04-24 15:51 ` Tim Chen
2025-04-25 9:13 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-04-25 17:29 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2025-04-25 8:58 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-04-21 3:25 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] sched: Add ftrace to track task migration and load balance within and across LLC Chen Yu
2025-04-29 3:47 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] sched: Introduce Cache aware scheduling K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-29 12:57 ` Chen, Yu C
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=0a574da2c69e6bd607e20c5865d3b66fb9329e6d.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=e45141a1a64d7dcfca2683f56735ba4da60ba19e.camel@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=libo.chen@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=yu.chen.surf@foxmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox