On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:44:20AM +0200 Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 09:50, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Several wrong task placement have been raised with the current load
> > > balance algorithm but their fixes are not always straight forward and
> > > end up with using biased values to force migrations. A cleanup and rework
> > > of the load balance will help to handle such UCs and enable to fine grain
> > > the behavior of the scheduler for other cases.
> > >
> > > Patch 1 has already been sent separately and only consolidate asym policy
> > > in one place and help the review of the changes in load_balance.
> > >
> > > Patch 2 renames the sum of h_nr_running in stats.
> > >
> > > Patch 3 removes meaningless imbalance computation to make review of
> > > patch 4 easier.
> > >
> > > Patch 4 reworks load_balance algorithm and fixes some wrong task placement
> > > but try to stay conservative.
> > >
> > > Patch 5 add the sum of nr_running to monitor non cfs tasks and take that
> > > into account when pulling tasks.
> > >
> > > Patch 6 replaces runnable_load by load now that the signal is only used
> > > when overloaded.
> > >
> > > Patch 7 improves the spread of tasks at the 1st scheduling level.
> > >
> > > Patch 8 uses utilization instead of load in all steps of misfit task
> > > path.
> > >
> > > Patch 9 replaces runnable_load_avg by load_avg in the wake up path.
> > >
> > > Patch 10 optimizes find_idlest_group() that was using both runnable_load
> > > and load. This has not been squashed with previous patch to ease the
> > > review.
> > >
> > > Patch 11 reworks find_idlest_group() to follow the same steps as
> > > find_busiest_group()
> > >
> > > Some benchmarks results based on 8 iterations of each tests:
> > > - small arm64 dual quad cores system
> > >
> > > tip/sched/core w/ this patchset improvement
> > > schedpipe 53125 +/-0.18% 53443 +/-0.52% (+0.60%)
> > >
> > > hackbench -l (2560/#grp) -g #grp
> > > 1 groups 1.579 +/-29.16% 1.410 +/-13.46% (+10.70%)
> > > 4 groups 1.269 +/-9.69% 1.205 +/-3.27% (+5.00%)
> > > 8 groups 1.117 +/-1.51% 1.123 +/-1.27% (+4.57%)
> > > 16 groups 1.176 +/-1.76% 1.164 +/-2.42% (+1.07%)
> > >
> > > Unixbench shell8
> > > 1 test 1963.48 +/-0.36% 1902.88 +/-0.73% (-3.09%)
> > > 224 tests 2427.60 +/-0.20% 2469.80 +/-0.42% (1.74%)
> > >
> > > - large arm64 2 nodes / 224 cores system
> > >
> > > tip/sched/core w/ this patchset improvement
> > > schedpipe 124084 +/-1.36% 124445 +/-0.67% (+0.29%)
> > >
> > > hackbench -l (256000/#grp) -g #grp
> > > 1 groups 15.305 +/-1.50% 14.001 +/-1.99% (+8.52%)
> > > 4 groups 5.959 +/-0.70% 5.542 +/-3.76% (+6.99%)
> > > 16 groups 3.120 +/-1.72% 3.253 +/-0.61% (-4.92%)
> > > 32 groups 2.911 +/-0.88% 2.837 +/-1.16% (+2.54%)
> > > 64 groups 2.805 +/-1.90% 2.716 +/-1.18% (+3.17%)
> > > 128 groups 3.166 +/-7.71% 3.891 +/-6.77% (+5.82%)
> > > 256 groups 3.655 +/-10.09% 3.185 +/-6.65% (+12.87%)
> > >
> > > dbench
> > > 1 groups 328.176 +/-0.29% 330.217 +/-0.32% (+0.62%)
> > > 4 groups 930.739 +/-0.50% 957.173 +/-0.66% (+2.84%)
> > > 16 groups 1928.292 +/-0.36% 1978.234 +/-0.88% (+0.92%)
> > > 32 groups 2369.348 +/-1.72% 2454.020 +/-0.90% (+3.57%)
> > > 64 groups 2583.880 +/-3.39% 2618.860 +/-0.84% (+1.35%)
> > > 128 groups 2256.406 +/-10.67% 2392.498 +/-2.13% (+6.03%)
> > > 256 groups 1257.546 +/-3.81% 1674.684 +/-4.97% (+33.17%)
> > >
> > > Unixbench shell8
> > > 1 test 6944.16 +/-0.02 6605.82 +/-0.11 (-4.87%)
> > > 224 tests 13499.02 +/-0.14 13637.94 +/-0.47% (+1.03%)
> > > lkp reported a -10% regression on shell8 (1 test) for v3 that
> > > seems that is partially recovered on my platform with v4.
> > >
> > > tip/sched/core sha1:
> > > commit 563c4f85f9f0 ("Merge branch 'sched/rt' into sched/core, to pick
> > > up -rt changes")
> > >
> > > Changes since v3:
> > > - small typo and variable ordering fixes
> > > - add some acked/reviewed tag
> > > - set 1 instead of load for migrate_misfit
> > > - use nr_h_running instead of load for asym_packing
> > > - update the optimization of find_idlest_group() and put back somes
> > > conditions when comparing load
> > > - rework find_idlest_group() to match find_busiest_group() behavior
> > >
> > > Changes since v2:
> > > - fix typo and reorder code
> > > - some minor code fixes
> > > - optimize the find_idles_group()
> > >
> > > Not covered in this patchset:
> > > - Better detection of overloaded and fully busy state, especially for
> > > cases
> > > when nr_running > nr CPUs.
> > >
> > > Vincent Guittot (11):
> > > sched/fair: clean up asym packing
> > > sched/fair: rename sum_nr_running to sum_h_nr_running
> > > sched/fair: remove meaningless imbalance calculation
> > > sched/fair: rework load_balance
> > > sched/fair: use rq->nr_running when balancing load
> > > sched/fair: use load instead of runnable load in load_balance
> > > sched/fair: evenly spread tasks when not overloaded
> > > sched/fair: use utilization to select misfit task
> > > sched/fair: use load instead of runnable load in wakeup path
> > > sched/fair: optimize find_idlest_group
> > > sched/fair: rework find_idlest_group
> > >
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 1181
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 682 insertions(+), 499 deletions(-)
> >
> > Thanks, that's an excellent series!
> >
> > I've queued it up in sched/core with a handful of readability edits to
> > comments and changelogs.
>
> Thanks
>
> >
> > There are some upstreaming caveats though, I expect this series to be a
> > performance regression magnet:
> >
> > - load_balance() and wake-up changes invariably are such: some workloads
> > only work/scale well by accident, and if we touch the logic it might
> > flip over into a less advantageous scheduling pattern.
> >
> > - In particular the changes from balancing and waking on runnable load
> > to full load that includes blocking *will* shift IO-intensive
> > workloads that you tests don't fully capture I believe. You also made
> > idle balancing more aggressive in essence - which might reduce cache
> > locality for some workloads.
> >
> > A full run on Mel Gorman's magic scalability test-suite would be super
> > useful ...
> >
> > Anyway, please be on the lookout for such performance regression reports.
>
> Yes I monitor the regressions on the mailing list
>
Nice to see these in! Our perf team is running tests on this version. I
should have results in a couple days.
Cheers,
Phil
> >
> > Also, we seem to have grown a fair amount of these TODO entries:
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * XXX borrowed from update_sg_lb_stats
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * XXX: only do this for the part of runnable >
> > running ?
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * XXX illustrate
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: } else if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) { /* XXX
> > always ? */
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * can also include other factors [XXX].
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * [XXX expand on:
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * [XXX more?]
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * [XXX write more on how we solve this.. _after_
> > merging pjt's patches that
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: * XXX for now avg_load is not computed
> > and always 0 so we
> > kernel/sched/fair.c: /* XXX broken for overlapping NUMA groups
> > */
> >
>
> I will have a look :-)
>
> > :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
--
