Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Add a per-shard overload flag

[David Vernet <void@manifault.com>]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:15:08PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:

Hi Prateek,

> Even with the two patches, I still observe the following lock
> contention when profiling the tbench 128-clients run with IBS:
> 
>   -   12.61%  swapper          [kernel.vmlinux]         [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>      - 10.94% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>         - 10.73% _raw_spin_lock
>            - 9.57% __schedule
>                 schedule_idle
>                 do_idle
>               + cpu_startup_entry
>            - 0.82% task_rq_lock
>                 newidle_balance
>                 pick_next_task_fair
>                 __schedule
>                 schedule_idle
>                 do_idle
>               + cpu_startup_entry
> 
> Since David mentioned rq->avg_idle check is probably not the right step
> towards the solution, this experiment introduces a per-shard
> "overload" flag. Similar to "rq->rd->overload", per-shard overload flag
> notifies of the possibility of one or more rq covered in the shard's
> domain having a queued task. shard's overload flag is set at the same
> time as "rq->rd->overload", and is cleared when shard's list is found
> to be empty.

I think this is an interesting idea, but I feel that it's still working
against the core proposition of SHARED_RUNQ, which is to enable work
conservation.

> With these changes, following are the results for tbench 128-clients:

Just to make sure I understand, this is to address the contention we're
observing on tbench with 64 - 256 clients, right?  That's my
understanding from Gautham's reply in [0].

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZOc7i7wM0x4hF4vL@BLR-5CG11610CF.amd.com/

If so, are we sure this change won't regress other workloads that would
have benefited from the work conservation?

Also, I assume that you don't see the improved contention without this,
even if you include your fix to the newidle_balance() that has us skip
over the <= LLC domain?

Thanks,
David

P.S. Taking off on vacation now, so any replies will be very delayed.
Thanks again for working on this!

> 
> tip				: 1.00 (var: 1.00%)
> tip + v3 + series till patch 2	: 0.41 (var: 1.15%) (diff: -58.81%)
> tip + v3 + full series		: 1.01 (var: 0.36%) (diff: +00.92%)
> 
> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c  | 13 +++++++++++--
>  kernel/sched/sched.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 446ffdad49e1..31fe109fdaf0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ static void shared_runq_reassign_domains(void)
>  		rq->cfs.shared_runq = shared_runq;
>  		rq->cfs.shard = &shared_runq->shards[shard_idx];
>  		rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
> +		WRITE_ONCE(rq->cfs.shard->overload, 0);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -202,6 +203,7 @@ static void __shared_runq_drain(struct shared_runq *shared_runq)
>  		list_for_each_entry_safe(p, tmp, &shard->list, shared_runq_node)
>  			list_del_init(&p->shared_runq_node);
>  		raw_spin_unlock(&shard->lock);
> +		WRITE_ONCE(shard->overload, 0);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -258,13 +260,20 @@ shared_runq_pop_task(struct shared_runq_shard *shard, int target)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *p;
>  
> -	if (list_empty(&shard->list))
> +	if (!READ_ONCE(shard->overload))
>  		return NULL;
>  
> +	if (list_empty(&shard->list)) {
> +		WRITE_ONCE(shard->overload, 0);
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
>  	raw_spin_lock(&shard->lock);
>  	p = list_first_entry_or_null(&shard->list, struct task_struct,
>  				     shared_runq_node);
> -	if (p && is_cpu_allowed(p, target))
> +	if (!p)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(shard->overload, 0);
> +	else if (is_cpu_allowed(p, target))
>  		list_del_init(&p->shared_runq_node);
>  	else
>  		p = NULL;
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index f50176f720b1..e8d4d948f742 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -601,6 +601,20 @@ do {									\
>  struct shared_runq_shard {
>  	struct list_head list;
>  	raw_spinlock_t lock;
> +	/*
> +	 * shared_runq_shard can contain running tasks.
> +	 * In such cases where all the tasks are running,
> +	 * it is futile to attempt to pull tasks from the
> +	 * list. Overload flag is used to indicate case
> +	 * where one or more rq in the shard domain may
> +	 * have a queued task. If the flag is 0, it is
> +	 * very likely that all tasks in the shard are
> +	 * running and cannot be migrated. This is not
> +	 * guarded by the shard lock, and since it may
> +	 * be updated often, it is placed into its own
> +	 * cacheline.
> +	 */
> +	int overload ____cacheline_aligned;
>  } ____cacheline_aligned;
>  
>  /* This would likely work better as a configurable knob via debugfs */
> @@ -2585,6 +2599,9 @@ static inline void add_nr_running(struct rq *rq, unsigned count)
>  	if (prev_nr < 2 && rq->nr_running >= 2) {
>  		if (!READ_ONCE(rq->rd->overload))
>  			WRITE_ONCE(rq->rd->overload, 1);
> +
> +		if (rq->cfs.shard && !READ_ONCE(rq->cfs.shard->overload))
> +			WRITE_ONCE(rq->cfs.shard->overload, 1);
>  	}
>  #endif
>  
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>