From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, kernellwp@gmail.com,
yuyang.du@intel.com, umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched: fix find_idlest_group for fork
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 23:25:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161203232503.GJ20785@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1480088073-11642-2-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
On Fri, 25 Nov, at 04:34:32PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> During fork, the utilization of a task is init once the rq has been
> selected because the current utilization level of the rq is used to set
> the utilization of the fork task. As the task's utilization is still
> null at this step of the fork sequence, it doesn't make sense to look for
> some spare capacity that can fit the task's utilization.
> Furthermore, I can see perf regressions for the test "hackbench -P -g 1"
> because the least loaded policy is always bypassed and tasks are not
> spread during fork.
>
> With this patch and the fix below, we are back to same performances as
> for v4.8. The fix below is only a temporary one used for the test until a
> smarter solution is found because we can't simply remove the test which is
> useful for others benchmarks
>
> @@ -5708,13 +5708,6 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>
> avg_cost = this_sd->avg_scan_cost;
>
> - /*
> - * Due to large variance we need a large fuzz factor; hackbench in
> - * particularly is sensitive here.
> - */
> - if ((avg_idle / 512) < avg_cost)
> - return -1;
> -
> time = local_clock();
>
> for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd), target, wrap) {
>
OK, I need to point out that I didn't apply the above hunk when
testing this patch series. But I wouldn't have expected that to impact
our fork-intensive workloads so much. Let me know if you'd like me to
re-run with it applied.
I don't see much of a difference, positive or negative, for the
majority of the test machines, it's mainly a wash.
However, the following 4-cpu Xeon E5504 machine does show a nice win,
with thread counts in the mid-range (note, the second column is number
of hackbench groups, where each group has 40 tasks),
hackbench-process-pipes
4.9.0-rc6 4.9.0-rc6 4.9.0-rc6
tip-sched fix-fig-for-fork fix-sig
Amean 1 0.2193 ( 0.00%) 0.2014 ( 8.14%) 0.1746 ( 20.39%)
Amean 3 0.4489 ( 0.00%) 0.3544 ( 21.04%) 0.3284 ( 26.83%)
Amean 5 0.6173 ( 0.00%) 0.4690 ( 24.02%) 0.4977 ( 19.37%)
Amean 7 0.7323 ( 0.00%) 0.6367 ( 13.05%) 0.6267 ( 14.42%)
Amean 12 0.9716 ( 0.00%) 1.0187 ( -4.85%) 0.9351 ( 3.75%)
Amean 16 1.2866 ( 0.00%) 1.2664 ( 1.57%) 1.2131 ( 5.71%)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-03 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-25 15:34 [PATCH 0/2 v2] sched: improve spread of tasks during fork Vincent Guittot
2016-11-25 15:34 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched: fix find_idlest_group for fork Vincent Guittot
2016-11-28 17:01 ` Matt Fleming
2016-11-28 17:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-11-29 10:57 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-11-29 11:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-29 11:44 ` Matt Fleming
2016-11-29 12:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-29 14:46 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-12-05 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-29 13:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-11-29 14:50 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-11-29 14:57 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-03 23:25 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2016-12-05 9:17 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-11-25 15:34 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched: use load_avg for selecting idlest group Vincent Guittot
2016-11-30 12:49 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-11-30 13:49 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-11-30 13:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-11-30 14:24 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-12-02 15:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-02 22:24 ` Matt Fleming
2016-11-30 14:23 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-12-03 3:31 ` Brendan Gregg
2016-12-03 21:47 ` Matt Fleming
2016-12-05 9:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-05 13:35 ` Matt Fleming
2016-12-08 14:09 ` Matt Fleming
2016-12-08 14:33 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-11-28 17:02 ` [PATCH 0/2 v2] sched: improve spread of tasks during fork Matt Fleming
2016-11-28 17:20 ` Vincent Guittot
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=20161203232503.GJ20785@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=yuyang.du@intel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).