On 01/17/2013 01:17 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:08:21 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 01/08/2013 04:41 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for such a clear and comprehensive explanation.
>>> So when I put together the problem and the proposed solution pieces in the
>>> current
>>> scheduler scalability,the following was what I found:
>>>
>>> 1. select_idle_sibling() is needed as an agent to correctly find the right
>>> cpu for wake
>>> up tasks to go to."Correctly" would be to find an idle cpu at the lowest
>>> cost possible.
>>> 2."Cost could be lowered" either by optimizing the order of searching for
>>> an idle cpu or
>>> restricting the search to a few cpus alone.
>>> 3. The former has the problem that it would not prevent bouncing tasks all
>>> over the domain
>>> sharing an L3 cache,which could potentially affect the fast moving tasks.
>>> 4. The latter has the problem that it is not aggressive enough in finding
>>> an idle cpu.
>>>
>>> This is some tangled problem,but I think the solution at best could be
>>> smoothed to a a flowchart.
>>>
>>> STEP1 STEP2 STEP3
>>> _____________________
>>> | |
>>> |See if the idle buddy|No _________________ Yes ________________
>>> |is free at all sched |---->| Do we search the|----> |Optimized search|
>>> |domains | |sched domains | |________________|
>>> |_____________________| |for an idle cpu | |
>>> |Yes |_________________| \|/
>>> \|/ |No: saturated Return target cpu
>>> Return \|/ system
>>> cpu buddy Return prev_cpu
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I re-written the patch as following. hackbench/aim9 doest show clean
>> performance change.
>> Actually we can get some profit. it also will be very slight. :)
>> BTW, it still need another patch before apply this. Just to show the logical.
>>
>> ===========
>>> From 145ff27744c8ac04eda056739fe5aa907a00877e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:49:03 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/7] sched: select_idle_sibling optimization
>>
>> Current logical in this function will insist to wake up the task in a
>> totally idle group, otherwise it would rather back to previous cpu.
>
> Or current cpu depending on result of wake_affine(), right?
>
>>
>> The new logical will try to wake up the task on any idle cpu in the same
>> cpu socket (in same sd_llc), while idle cpu in the smaller domain has
>> higher priority.
>
> But what about SMT domain?
>
> I mean it seems that the code prefers running a task on a idle cpu which
> is a sibling thread in the same core rather than running it on an idle
> cpu in another idle core. I guess we didn't do that before.
>
>>
>> It should has some help on burst wake up benchmarks like aim7.
>>
>> Original-patch-by: Preeti U Murthy <pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index e116215..fa40e49 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -3253,13 +3253,13 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct
>> task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>> /*
>> * Try and locate an idle CPU in the sched_domain.
>> */
>> -static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p)
>> +static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p,
>> + struct sched_domain *affine_sd, int sync)
>
> Where are these arguments used?
>
>
>> {
>> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
>> struct sched_domain *sd;
>> struct sched_group *sg;
>> - int i;
>>
>> /*
>> * If the task is going to be woken-up on this cpu and if it is
>> @@ -3281,27 +3281,25 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p)
>> /*
>> * Otherwise, iterate the domains and find an elegible idle cpu.
>> */
>> - sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc, prev_cpu));
>> - for_each_lower_domain(sd) {
>> + for_each_domain(prev_cpu, sd) {
>
> Always start from the prev_cpu?
a previous patch will check wake_affine and set prev_cpu = cpu accordingly.
>
>
>> sg = sd->groups;
>> do {
>> - if (!cpumask_intersects(sched_group_cpus(sg),
>> - tsk_cpus_allowed(p)))
>> - goto next;
>> -
>> - for_each_cpu(i, sched_group_cpus(sg)) {
>> - if (!idle_cpu(i))
>> - goto next;
>> - }
>> -
>> - prev_cpu = cpumask_first_and(sched_group_cpus(sg),
>> - tsk_cpus_allowed(p));
>> - goto done;
>> -next:
>> - sg = sg->next;
>> - } while (sg != sd->groups);
>> + int nr_busy = atomic_read(&sg->sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + /* no idle cpu in the group */
>> + if (nr_busy == sg->group_weight)
>> + continue;
>
> Maybe we can skip local group since it's a bottom-up search so we know
> there's no idle cpu in the lower domain from the prior iteration.
>
I did this change but seems results are worse on my machines, guess start
seeking idle cpu bottom up is a bad idea.
The following is full version with above change.
diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
index d3cf0d6..386bcf4 100644
--- a/include/linux/topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/topology.h
@@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER \
| 1*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES \
| 0*SD_SERIALIZE \
+ | 1*SD_PREFER_SIBLING \
, \
.last_balance = jiffies, \
.balance_interval = 1, \
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 5eea870..271b335 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3169,6 +3169,7 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct
task_struct *p, int sync)
return 1;
}
+ /* bias toward prev cpu */
return 0;
}
@@ -3252,53 +3253,56 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct
task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
/*
* Try and locate an idle CPU in the sched_domain.
*/
-static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int target)
+static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p,
+ struct sched_domain *affine_sd, int sync)
{
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
- struct sched_domain *sd;
+ struct sched_domain *sd, *llcsd;
struct sched_group *sg;
- int i;
/*
* If the task is going to be woken-up on this cpu and if it is
* already idle, then it is the right target.
*/
- if (target == cpu && idle_cpu(cpu))
+ if (idle_cpu(cpu))
return cpu;
/*
* If the task is going to be woken-up on the cpu where it previously
* ran and if it is currently idle, then it the right target.
*/
- if (target == prev_cpu && idle_cpu(prev_cpu))
+ if (cpu != prev_cpu && idle_cpu(prev_cpu))
return prev_cpu;
+ if (cpu != prev_cpu && !wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
+ cpu = prev_cpu;
+
/*
* Otherwise, iterate the domains and find an elegible idle cpu.
*/
- sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc, target));
- for_each_lower_domain(sd) {
+ llcsd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc, cpu));
+ for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
sg = sd->groups;
do {
- if (!cpumask_intersects(sched_group_cpus(sg),
- tsk_cpus_allowed(p)))
- goto next;
-
- for_each_cpu(i, sched_group_cpus(sg)) {
- if (!idle_cpu(i))
- goto next;
- }
-
- target = cpumask_first_and(sched_group_cpus(sg),
- tsk_cpus_allowed(p));
- goto done;
-next:
- sg = sg->next;
- } while (sg != sd->groups);
+ int nr_busy = atomic_read(&sg->sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
+ int i;
+
+ /* skip local group and if no idle cpu in group */
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_group_cpus(sg)) ||
+ nr_busy == sg->group_weight)
+ continue;
+ for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_cpus(sg),
+ tsk_cpus_allowed(p))
+ if (idle_cpu(i))
+ return i;
+ } while (sg = sg->next, sg != sd->groups);
+
+ /* only wake up task on the same cpu socket as prev cpu */
+ if (sd == llcsd)
+ break;
}
-done:
- return target;
+ return cpu;
}
/*
@@ -3351,10 +3355,7 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
}
if (affine_sd) {
- if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
- prev_cpu = cpu;
-
- new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
+ new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, affine_sd, sync);
goto unlock;
}
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
