From: Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@amazon.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <wuchi.zero@gmail.com>,
<abuehaze@amazon.com>, <hagarhem@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] /sched/core: Fix Unixbench spawn test regression
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:20:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250314162034.GA12958@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBixgju0YX=TLbOWO4s9uHNBMSmnV=xcVBJVfU1wqrM4Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 05:06:50PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 10:21, Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@amazon.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 03:41:40PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > > On 11/03/2025 17:35, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 16:29, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10/03/2025 14:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > >>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 17:26, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hagar reported a 30% drop in UnixBench spawn test with commit
> > > >>>> eff6c8ce8d4d ("sched/core: Reduce cost of sched_move_task when config
> > > >>>> autogroup") on a m6g.xlarge AWS EC2 instance with 4 vCPUs and 16 GiB RAM
> > > >>>> (aarch64) (single level MC sched domain) [1].
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> There is an early bail from sched_move_task() if p->sched_task_group is
> > > >>>> equal to p's 'cpu cgroup' (sched_get_task_group()). E.g. both are
> > > >>>> pointing to taskgroup '/user.slice/user-1000.slice/session-1.scope'
> > > >>>> (Ubuntu '22.04.5 LTS').
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Isn't this same use case that has been used by commit eff6c8ce8d4d to
> > > >>> show the benefit of adding the test if ((group ==
> > > >>> tsk->sched_task_group) ?
> > > >>> Adding Wuchi who added the condition
> > > >>
> > > >> IMHO, UnixBench spawn reports a performance number according to how many
> > > >> tasks could be spawned whereas, IIUC, commit eff6c8ce8d4d was reporting
> > > >> the time spend in sched_move_task().
> > > >
> > > > But does not your patch revert the benefits shown in the figures of
> > > > commit eff6c8ce8d4d ? It skipped sched_move task in do_exit autogroup
> > > > and you adds it back
> > >
> > > Yeah, we do need the PELT update in sched_change_group()
> > > (task_change_group_fair()) in the do_exit() path to get the 30% score
> > > back in 'UnixBench spawn'. Even that means we need more time due to this
> > > in sched_move_task().
> > >
> > > I retested this and it turns out that 'group == tsk->sched_task_group'
> > > is only true when sched_move_task() is called from exit.
> > >
> > > So to get the score back for 'UnixBench spawn' we should rather revert
> > > commit eff6c8ce8d4d.
> > >
> > > The analysis in my patch still holds though.
> > >
> > > If you guys agree I can send the revert with my analysis in the
> > > patch-header.
> > Agree. The follow up commit fa614b4feb5a ("sched: Simplify sched_move_task()")
> > needs to be reverted as well.
>
> Why do you think it should be reverted as well ?
I meant the revert of eff6c8ce8d4d7 requires fa614b4feb5a to be
reverted first. Dietmar has already done this in his revert
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250314151345.275739-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com/,
so it's all good now.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-14 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-06 16:26 [PATCH] /sched/core: Fix Unixbench spawn test regression Dietmar Eggemann
2025-03-07 11:07 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-03-10 13:59 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-03-10 15:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-03-11 16:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-03-12 14:41 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-03-12 16:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-03-13 9:21 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-03-14 16:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-03-14 16:20 ` Hagar Hemdan [this message]
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=20250314162034.GA12958@amazon.com \
--to=hagarhem@amazon.com \
--cc=abuehaze@amazon.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wuchi.zero@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