Re: [PATCH] sched, fair: Allow a small load imbalance between low utilisation SD_NUMA domains v4

[Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:13:20AM +0000 Mel Gorman wrote:
> Changelog since V3
> o Allow a fixed imbalance a basic comparison with 2 tasks. This turned out to
>   be as good or better than allowing an imbalance based on the group weight
>   without worrying about potential spillover of the lower scheduler domains.
> 
> Changelog since V2
> o Only allow a small imbalance when utilisation is low to address reports that
>   higher utilisation workloads were hitting corner cases.
> 
> Changelog since V1
> o Alter code flow 						vincent.guittot
> o Use idle CPUs for comparison instead of sum_nr_running	vincent.guittot
> o Note that the division is still in place. Without it and taking
>   imbalance_adj into account before the cutoff, two NUMA domains
>   do not converage as being equally balanced when the number of
>   busy tasks equals the size of one domain (50% of the sum).
> 
> The CPU load balancer balances between different domains to spread load
> and strives to have equal balance everywhere. Communicating tasks can
> migrate so they are topologically close to each other but these decisions
> are independent. On a lightly loaded NUMA machine, two communicating tasks
> pulled together at wakeup time can be pushed apart by the load balancer.
> In isolation, the load balancer decision is fine but it ignores the tasks
> data locality and the wakeup/LB paths continually conflict. NUMA balancing
> is also a factor but it also simply conflicts with the load balancer.
> 
> This patch allows a fixed degree of imbalance of two tasks to exist
> between NUMA domains regardless of utilisation levels. In many cases,
> this prevents communicating tasks being pulled apart. It was evaluated
> whether the imbalance should be scaled to the domain size. However, no
> additional benefit was measured across a range of workloads and machines
> and scaling adds the risk that lower domains have to be rebalanced. While
> this could change again in the future, such a change should specify the
> use case and benefit.
> 
> The most obvious impact is on netperf TCP_STREAM -- two simple
> communicating tasks with some softirq offload depending on the
> transmission rate.
> 
> 2-socket Haswell machine 48 core, HT enabled
> netperf-tcp -- mmtests config config-network-netperf-unbound
>                        	      baseline              lbnuma-v3
> Hmean     64         568.73 (   0.00%)      577.56 *   1.55%*
> Hmean     128       1089.98 (   0.00%)     1128.06 *   3.49%*
> Hmean     256       2061.72 (   0.00%)     2104.39 *   2.07%*
> Hmean     1024      7254.27 (   0.00%)     7557.52 *   4.18%*
> Hmean     2048     11729.20 (   0.00%)    13350.67 *  13.82%*
> Hmean     3312     15309.08 (   0.00%)    18058.95 *  17.96%*
> Hmean     4096     17338.75 (   0.00%)    20483.66 *  18.14%*
> Hmean     8192     25047.12 (   0.00%)    27806.84 *  11.02%*
> Hmean     16384    27359.55 (   0.00%)    33071.88 *  20.88%*
> Stddev    64           2.16 (   0.00%)        2.02 (   6.53%)
> Stddev    128          2.31 (   0.00%)        2.19 (   5.05%)
> Stddev    256         11.88 (   0.00%)        3.22 (  72.88%)
> Stddev    1024        23.68 (   0.00%)        7.24 (  69.43%)
> Stddev    2048        79.46 (   0.00%)       71.49 (  10.03%)
> Stddev    3312        26.71 (   0.00%)       57.80 (-116.41%)
> Stddev    4096       185.57 (   0.00%)       96.15 (  48.19%)
> Stddev    8192       245.80 (   0.00%)      100.73 (  59.02%)
> Stddev    16384      207.31 (   0.00%)      141.65 (  31.67%)
> 
> In this case, there was a sizable improvement to performance and
> a general reduction in variance. However, this is not univeral.
> For most machines, the impact was roughly a 3% performance gain.
> 
> Ops NUMA base-page range updates       19796.00         292.00
> Ops NUMA PTE updates                   19796.00         292.00
> Ops NUMA PMD updates                       0.00           0.00
> Ops NUMA hint faults                   16113.00         143.00
> Ops NUMA hint local faults %            8407.00         142.00
> Ops NUMA hint local percent               52.18          99.30
> Ops NUMA pages migrated                 4244.00           1.00
> 
> Without the patch, only 52.18% of sampled accesses are local.  In an
> earlier changelog, 100% of sampled accesses are local and indeed on
> most machines, this was still the case. In this specific case, the
> local sampled rates was 99.3% but note the "base-page range updates"
> and "PTE updates".  The activity with the patch is negligible as were
> the number of faults. The small number of pages migrated were related to
> shared libraries.  A 2-socket Broadwell showed better results on average
> but are not presented for brevity as the performance was similar except
> it showed 100% of the sampled NUMA hints were local. The patch holds up
> for a 4-socket Haswell, an AMD EPYC and AMD Epyc 2 machine.
> 
> For dbench, the impact depends on the filesystem used and the number of
> clients. On XFS, there is little difference as the clients typically
> communicate with workqueues which have a separate class of scheduler
> problem at the moment. For ext4, performance is generally better,
> particularly for small numbers of clients as NUMA balancing activity is
> negligible with the patch applied.
> 
> A more interesting example is the Facebook schbench which uses a
> number of messaging threads to communicate with worker threads. In this
> configuration, one messaging thread is used per NUMA node and the number of
> worker threads is varied. The 50, 75, 90, 95, 99, 99.5 and 99.9 percentiles
> for response latency is then reported.
> 
> Lat 50.00th-qrtle-1        44.00 (   0.00%)       37.00 (  15.91%)
> Lat 75.00th-qrtle-1        53.00 (   0.00%)       41.00 (  22.64%)
> Lat 90.00th-qrtle-1        57.00 (   0.00%)       42.00 (  26.32%)
> Lat 95.00th-qrtle-1        63.00 (   0.00%)       43.00 (  31.75%)
> Lat 99.00th-qrtle-1        76.00 (   0.00%)       51.00 (  32.89%)
> Lat 99.50th-qrtle-1        89.00 (   0.00%)       52.00 (  41.57%)
> Lat 99.90th-qrtle-1        98.00 (   0.00%)       55.00 (  43.88%)
> Lat 50.00th-qrtle-2        42.00 (   0.00%)       42.00 (   0.00%)
> Lat 75.00th-qrtle-2        48.00 (   0.00%)       47.00 (   2.08%)
> Lat 90.00th-qrtle-2        53.00 (   0.00%)       52.00 (   1.89%)
> Lat 95.00th-qrtle-2        55.00 (   0.00%)       53.00 (   3.64%)
> Lat 99.00th-qrtle-2        62.00 (   0.00%)       60.00 (   3.23%)
> Lat 99.50th-qrtle-2        63.00 (   0.00%)       63.00 (   0.00%)
> Lat 99.90th-qrtle-2        68.00 (   0.00%)       66.00 (   2.94%
> 
> For higher worker threads, the differences become negligible but it's
> interesting to note the difference in wakeup latency at low utilisation
> and mpstat confirms that activity was almost all on one node until
> the number of worker threads increase.
> 
> Hackbench generally showed neutral results across a range of machines.
> This is different to earlier versions of the patch which allowed imbalances
> for higher degrees of utilisation. perf bench pipe showed negligible
> differences in overall performance as the differences are very close to
> the noise.
> 
> An earlier prototype of the patch showed major regressions for NAS C-class
> when running with only half of the available CPUs -- 20-30% performance
> hits were measured at the time. With this version of the patch, the impact
> is negligible with small gains/losses within the noise measured. This is
> because the number of threads far exceeds the small imbalance the aptch
> cares about. Similarly, there were report of regressions for the autonuma
> benchmark against earlier versions but again, normal load balancing now
> applies for that workload.
> 
> In general, the patch simply seeks to avoid unnecessary cross-node
> migrations in the basic case where imbalances are very small.  For low
> utilisation communicating workloads, this patch generally behaves better
> with less NUMA balancing activity. For high utilisation, there is no
> change in behaviour.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ba749f579714..ade7a8dca5e4 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8648,10 +8648,6 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
>  	/*
>  	 * Try to use spare capacity of local group without overloading it or
>  	 * emptying busiest.
> -	 * XXX Spreading tasks across NUMA nodes is not always the best policy
> -	 * and special care should be taken for SD_NUMA domain level before
> -	 * spreading the tasks. For now, load_balance() fully relies on
> -	 * NUMA_BALANCING and fbq_classify_group/rq to override the decision.
>  	 */
>  	if (local->group_type == group_has_spare) {
>  		if (busiest->group_type > group_fully_busy) {
> @@ -8691,16 +8687,37 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
>  			env->migration_type = migrate_task;
>  			lsub_positive(&nr_diff, local->sum_nr_running);
>  			env->imbalance = nr_diff >> 1;
> -			return;
> -		}
> +		} else {
>  
> -		/*
> -		 * If there is no overload, we just want to even the number of
> -		 * idle cpus.
> -		 */
> -		env->migration_type = migrate_task;
> -		env->imbalance = max_t(long, 0, (local->idle_cpus -
> +			/*
> +			 * If there is no overload, we just want to even the number of
> +			 * idle cpus.
> +			 */
> +			env->migration_type = migrate_task;
> +			env->imbalance = max_t(long, 0, (local->idle_cpus -
>  						 busiest->idle_cpus) >> 1);
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Consider allowing a small imbalance between NUMA groups */
> +		if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> +			unsigned int imbalance_min;
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * Compute an allowed imbalance based on a simple
> +			 * pair of communicating tasks that should remain
> +			 * local and ignore them.
> +			 *
> +			 * NOTE: Generally this would have been based on
> +			 * the domain size and this was evaluated. However,
> +			 * the benefit is similar across a range of workloads
> +			 * and machines but scaling by the domain size adds
> +			 * the risk that lower domains have to be rebalanced.
> +			 */
> +			imbalance_min = 2;
> +			if (busiest->sum_nr_running <= imbalance_min)
> +				env->imbalance = 0;
> +		}
> +
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> 

Works for me. I like this simlified version.

Acked-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>

  and/or

Tested-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>


--