lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6] sched/fair: Remove group imbalance from calculate_imbalance()
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 08:48:53PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> On 13/07/17 20:55, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > The group_imbalance path in calculate_imbalance() made sense when it was
> > added back in 2007 with commit 908a7c1b9b80 ("sched: fix improper load
> > balance across sched domain") because busiest->load_per_task factored into
> > the amount of imbalance that was calculated. Beginning with commit
> > dd5feea14a7d ("sched: Fix SCHED_MC regression caused by change in sched
> > cpu_power"), busiest->load_per_task is not a factor in the imbalance
> > calculation, thus the group_imbalance path no longer makes sense.

Bit quick that. If its no longer used, then who cares what value it
is... /me reads on.

> You're referring here to the use of 'sds->max_load -
> sds->busiest_load_per_task' in the calculation of max_pull which got
> replaced by load_above_capacity with dd5feea14a7d?
>
> I still wonder if the original code (908a7c1b9b80)
>
> if (group_imb)
> busiest_load_per_task = min(busiest_load_per_task, avg_load);
>
> had something to do with the following:
>
> if (max_load <= busiest_load_per_task)
> goto out_balanced;

Quite possibly, yes. By lowering busiest_load_per_task it skips that
test. But also, as noted, the lower busiest_load_per_task is then used
in the imbalance calculation to allow moving more load around, so its
not only that.

> > The group_imbalance path can only affect the outcome of
> > calculate_imbalance() when the average load of the domain is less than the
> > original busiest->load_per_task. In this case, busiest->load_per_task is
> > overwritten with the scheduling domain load average. Thus
> > busiest->load_per_task no longer represents actual load that can be moved.
> >
> > At the final comparison between env->imbalance and busiest->load_per_task,
> > imbalance may be larger than the new busiest->load_per_task causing the
> > check to fail under the assumption that there is a task that could be
> > migrated to satisfy the imbalance. However env->imbalance may still be
> > smaller than the original busiest->load_per_task, thus it is unlikely that
> > there is a task that can be migrated to satisfy the imbalance.
> > Calculate_imbalance() would not choose to run fix_small_imbalance() when we
> > expect it should. In the worst case, this can result in idle cpus.
> >
> > Since the group imbalance path in calculate_imbalance() is at best a NOP
> > but otherwise harmful, remove it.

Hurm.. so fix_small_imbalance() itself is a pile of dog poo... it used
to make sense a long time ago, but smp-nice and then cgroups made a
complete joke of things.

> IIRC the topology you had in mind was MC + DIE level with n (n > 2) DIE
> level sched groups.

That'd be a NUMA box?

> Running the testcase 'taskset 0x05 '2 always running task'' (both tasks
> starting on cpu0) on your machine shows the issue since with your
> previous patch [1] "sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path"
> we now propagate 'group imbalance' from MC level to DIE level and since
> you have n > 2 you lower busiest->load_per_task in this group_imbalanced
> related if condition all the time and env->imbalance stays too small to
> let one of these tasks migrate to cpu2.
>
> Tried to test it on an Intel i5-3320M (2 cores x 2 HT) with rt-app (2
> always running cfs task with affinity 0x05 for 2*x ms and one rt task
> affine to 0x04 for x ms):
>
> # cat /proc/schedstat | grep ^domain | awk '{ print $1" "$2}'
> domain0 03
> domain1 0f
> domain0 03
> domain1 0f
> domain0 0c
> domain1 0f
> domain0 0c
> domain1 0f
>
> but here the prefer_sibling handling (group overloaded) eclipses 'group
> imbalance' the moment one of the cfs tasks can go to cpu2 so the if
> condition you got rid of is a nop.
>
> I wonder if it is fair to say that your fix helps multi-cluster
> (especially with n > 2) systems without SMT and with your first patch
> [1] for this specific, cpu affinity restricted test cases.

I tried on an IVB-EP with all the HT siblings unplugged, could not
reproduce either. Still at n=2 though. Let me fire up an EX, that'll get
me n=4.

So this is 4 * 18 * 2 = 144 cpus:

# for ((i=72; i<144; i++)) ; do echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online; done
# taskset -pc 0,18 $$
# while :; do :; done & while :; do :; done &

So I'm taking SMT out, affine to first and second MC group, start 2
loops.

Using another console I see them both using 100%.

If I then start a 3rd loop, I see 100% 50%,50%. I then kill the 100%.
Then instantly they balance and I get 2x100% back.

Anything else I need to reproduce? (other than maybe a slightly less
insane machine :-)


Because I have the feeling that while this patch cures things for you,
you're fighting symptoms.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-26 16:54    [W:0.100 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site