From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753511AbeBBRoR (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:44:17 -0500 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:39740 "EHLO userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752945AbeBBRmM (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:42:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH V3] sched: Improve scalability of select_idle_sibling using SMT balance To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: subhra mazumdar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com References: <20180129233102.19018-1-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com> <20180201123335.GV2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <911d42cf-54c7-4776-c13e-7c11f8ebfd31@oracle.com> <20180202171708.GN2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Steven Sistare Organization: Oracle Corporation Message-ID: <0b3ee72d-0316-e11d-dee4-0d35375eed1d@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:36:47 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180202171708.GN2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8793 signatures=668661 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=683 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802020216 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/2/2018 12:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 11:53:40AM -0500, Steven Sistare wrote: >>>> +static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_group *sg) >>>> { >>>> + int i, rand_index, rand_cpu; >>>> + int this_cpu = smp_processor_id(); >>>> >>>> + rand_index = CPU_PSEUDO_RANDOM(this_cpu) % sg->group_weight; >>>> + rand_cpu = sg->cp_array[rand_index]; >>> >>> Right, so yuck.. I know why you need that, but that extra array and >>> dereference is the reason I never went there. >>> >>> How much difference does it really make vs the 'normal' wrapping search >>> from last CPU ? >>> >>> This really should be a separate patch with separate performance numbers >>> on. >> >> For the benefit of other readers, if we always search and choose starting from >> the first CPU in a core, then later searches will often need to traverse the first >> N busy CPU's to find the first idle CPU. Choosing a random starting point avoids >> such bias. It is probably a win for processors with 4 to 8 CPUs per core, and >> a slight but hopefully negligible loss for 2 CPUs per core, and I agree we need >> to see performance data for this as a separate patch to decide. We have SPARC >> systems with 8 CPUs per core. > > Which is why the current code already doesn't start from the first cpu > in the mask. We start at whatever CPU the task ran last on, which is > effectively 'random' if the system is busy. > > So how is a per-cpu rotor better than that? The current code is: for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target)) { For an 8-cpu/core processor, 8 values of target map to the same cpu_smt_mask. 8 different tasks will traverse the mask in the same order. - Steve