lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [lkp-robot] [sched/fair] 6d46bd3d97: netperf.Throughput_tps -11.3% regression
Hi Rik,

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 23:32 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> To make the load check more meaningful, I am thinking if using
>> wake_affine()'s balance check is a better thing to do than the
>> 'nr_running < 2' check I used in this patch. Then again, since commit
>> 3fed382b46baac ("sched/numa: Implement NUMA node level
>> wake_affine()",
>> wake_affine() doesn't do balance check for CPUs within a socket so
>> probably bringing back something like the *old* wake_affine that
>> checked load between different CPUs within a socket is needed to
>> avoid
>> a potentially disastrous sync decision?
>
> This is because regardless of whether or not we did
> an affine wakeup, the code called select_idle_sibling
> within that socket, anyway.
>
> In other words, the behavior for within-socket
> wakeups was not substantially different with or
> without an affine wakeup.
>
> All that changed is which CPU select_idle_sibling
> starts searching at, and that only if the woken
> task's previous CPU is not idle.

Yes I understand. However with my 'strong sync' patch, such a
balancing check could be useful which is what I was trying to do in a
different way in my patch - but it could be that my way is not good
enough and potentially the old wake_affine check could help here - I
thought of spending some time next week after LPC travel to
reintroduce the old wake_affine and monitor this signal with some
tracing for the regressing netperf usecase.

>> The commit I refer to was
>> added with the reason that select_idle_sibling was selecting cores
>> anywhere within a socket, but with my patch we're more specifically
>> selecting the waker's CPU on passing the sync flag. Could you share
>> your thoughts about this?
>
> On systems with SMT, it may make more sense for
> sync wakeups to look for idle threads of the same
> core, than to have the woken task end up on the
> same thread, and wait for the current task to stop
> running.

I am ok with additionally doing an select_idle_smt for the SMT cases.
However Mike shows that it doesn't necessarily cause a performance
improvement. But if there is consensus on checking for idle SMT
threads, then I'm Ok with doing that.

>
> "Strong sync" wakeups like you propose would also
> change the semantics of wake_wide() and potentially
> other bits of code...
>

I understand, I am not very confident that wake_wide does the right
thing anyway. Atleast for Android, wake_wide doesn't seem to mirror
the most common usecase of display pipeline well. It seems that we
have cases where the 'flip count' is really high and causes wake_wide
all the time and sends us straight to the wake up slow path causing
regressions in Android benchmarks.

Atleast with the sync flag, the caller provides a meaningful
indication and I think making that flag stronger / more preferred than
wake_wide makes sense from that perspective since its not a signal
that's guessed, but is rather an input request.

thanks,

-Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-17 08:42    [W:0.105 / U:6.800 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site