From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>
Cc: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
dhaval.giani@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH V3] sched: Improve scalability of select_idle_sibling using SMT balance
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 20:58:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180202195839.GQ2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0b3ee72d-0316-e11d-dee4-0d35375eed1d@oracle.com>
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:36:47PM -0500, Steven Sistare wrote:
> 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.
Ooh, the SMT loop.. yes that can be improved. But look at the other
ones, they do:
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_domain_span(), target)
so we look for an idle cpu in the LLC domain, and start iteration at
@target, which will (on average) be different for different CPUs, and
thus hopefully find different idle CPUs.
You could simple change the SMT loop to something like:
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target), target)
and see what that does.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-02 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-29 23:31 [RESEND RFC PATCH V3] sched: Improve scalability of select_idle_sibling using SMT balance subhra mazumdar
2018-02-01 12:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-01 13:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-02 16:53 ` Steven Sistare
2018-02-02 17:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-02 17:36 ` Steven Sistare
2018-02-02 19:58 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-02-02 20:51 ` Steven Sistare
2018-02-02 17:37 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-02-05 12:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-05 22:09 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-02-06 9:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-07 0:30 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-02-07 8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-07 23:10 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-02-02 17:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-02 17:39 ` Steven Sistare
2018-02-02 18:34 ` Steven Sistare
2018-02-02 20:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-02 21:17 ` Steven Sistare
2018-02-03 3:47 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-02-02 19:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-02 21:06 ` Steven Sistare
2018-02-05 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-05 13:54 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-02-05 17:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-05 22:32 ` Subhra Mazumdar
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=20180202195839.GQ2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.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