From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Dietmar Eggeman <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rate limit calls to update_blocked_averages() for NOHZ
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:44:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210324134437.GA17675@vingu-book> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <274d8ae5-8f4d-7662-0e04-2fbc92b416fc@linux.intel.com>
Hi Tim,
Le mardi 23 mars 2021 à 14:37:59 (-0700), Tim Chen a écrit :
>
>
> On 1/29/21 9:27 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > The patch below moves the update of the blocked load of CPUs outside newidle_balance().
>
> On a well known database workload, we also saw a lot of overhead to do update_blocked_averages
> in newidle_balance(). So changes to reduce this overhead is much welcomed.
>
> Turning on cgroup induces 9% throughput degradation on a 2 socket 40 cores per socket Icelake system.
>
> A big part of the overhead in our database workload comes from updating
> blocked averages in newidle_balance, caused by I/O threads making
> some CPUs go in and out of idle frequently in the following code path:
>
> ----__blkdev_direct_IO_simple
> |
> |----io_schedule_timeout
> | |
> | ----schedule_timeout
> | |
> | ----schedule
> | |
> | ----__schedule
> | |
> | ----pick_next_task_fair
> | |
> | ----newidle_balance
> | |
> ----update_blocked_averages
>
> We found update_blocked_averages() now consumed most CPU time, eating up 2% of the CPU cycles once cgroup
> gets turned on.
>
> I hacked up Joe's original patch to rate limit the update of blocked
> averages called from newidle_balance(). The 9% throughput degradation reduced to
> 5.4%. We'll be testing Vincent's change to see if it can give
> similar performance improvement.
>
> Though in our test environment, sysctl_sched_migration_cost was kept
> much lower (25000) compared to the default (500000), to encourage migrations to idle cpu
> and reduce latency. We got quite a lot of calls to update_blocked_averages directly
> and then try to load_balance in newidle_balance instead of relegating
> the responsibility to idle load balancer. (See code snippet in newidle_balance below)
>
>
> if (this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost || <-----sched_migration_cost check
> !READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload)) {
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
> if (sd)
> update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> goto out; <--- invoke idle load balancer
> }
>
> raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
>
> update_blocked_averages(this_cpu);
>
> .... followed by load balance code ---
>
> So the update_blocked_averages offload to idle_load_balancer in Vincent's patch is less
> effective in this case with small sched_migration_cost.
>
> Looking at the code a bit more, we don't actually load balance every time in this code path
> unless our avg_idle time exceeds some threshold. Doing update_blocked_averages immediately
IIUC your problem, we call update_blocked_averages() but because of:
if (this_rq->avg_idle < curr_cost + sd->max_newidle_lb_cost) {
update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);
break;
}
the for_each_domain loop stops even before running load_balance on the 1st
sched domain level which means that update_blocked_averages() was called
unnecessarily.
And this is even more true with a small sysctl_sched_migration_cost which allows newly
idle LB for very small this_rq->avg_idle. We could wonder why you set such a low value
for sysctl_sched_migration_cost which is lower than the max_newidle_lb_cost of the
smallest domain but that's probably because of task_hot().
if avg_idle is lower than the sd->max_newidle_lb_cost of the 1st sched_domain, we should
skip spin_unlock/lock and for_each_domain() loop entirely
Maybe something like below:
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 76e33a70d575..08933e0d87ed 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -10723,17 +10723,21 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
*/
rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf);
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
+
if (this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost ||
- !READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload)) {
+ !READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload) ||
+ (sd && this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)) {
- rcu_read_lock();
- sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
if (sd)
update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);
rcu_read_unlock();
goto out;
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
> is only needed if we do call load_balance(). If we don't do any load balance in the code path,
> we can let the idle load balancer update the blocked averages lazily.
>
> Something like the following perhaps on top of Vincent's patch? We haven't really tested
> this change yet but want to see if this change makes sense to you.
>
> Tim
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 63950d80fd0b..b93f5f52658a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10591,6 +10591,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> struct sched_domain *sd;
> int pulled_task = 0;
> u64 curr_cost = 0;
> + bool updated_blocked_avg = false;
>
> update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
> /*
> @@ -10627,7 +10628,6 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
>
> raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
>
> - update_blocked_averages(this_cpu);
> rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
> int continue_balancing = 1;
> @@ -10639,6 +10639,11 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> }
>
> if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
> + if (!updated_blocked_avg) {
> + update_blocked_averages(this_cpu);
> + updated_blocked_avg = true;
> + }
> +
> t0 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
>
> pulled_task = load_balance(this_cpu, this_rq,
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-24 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-22 15:46 [PATCH] sched/fair: Rate limit calls to update_blocked_averages() for NOHZ Joel Fernandes (Google)
2021-01-22 16:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-22 18:39 ` Qais Yousef
2021-01-22 19:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-25 13:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-26 16:36 ` Qais Yousef
2021-01-22 19:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-25 10:44 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-01-25 17:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-25 17:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-01-25 14:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-27 18:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-28 13:57 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-28 15:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-28 16:57 ` Qais Yousef
[not found] ` <CAKfTPtBvwm9vZb5C=2oTF6N-Ht6Rvip4Lv18yi7O3G8e-_ZWdg@mail.gmail.com>
2021-01-29 17:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-03 11:54 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-02-03 13:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-04 9:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-02-03 17:09 ` Qais Yousef
2021-02-03 17:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-04 10:45 ` Qais Yousef
2021-02-03 19:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-03-23 21:37 ` Tim Chen
2021-03-24 13:44 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2021-03-24 16:05 ` Tim Chen
2021-04-07 14:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-07 17:19 ` Tim Chen
2021-04-08 14:51 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-08 23:05 ` Tim Chen
2021-04-09 15:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-09 17:59 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-10 21:59 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-11 15:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-05-11 17:25 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-11 17:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-05-12 13:59 ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-13 18:45 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-17 16:14 ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-11 20:00 ` Tim Chen
2021-06-18 10:28 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-06-18 16:14 ` Tim Chen
2021-06-25 8:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-01 15:13 ` Joel Fernandes
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=20210324134437.GA17675@vingu-book \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.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