lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access
From
Date

On 3/29/19 3:23 PM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
>
> On 3/29/19 6:35 AM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:09 PM Subhra Mazumdar
>> <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Is the core wide lock primarily responsible for the regression? I ran
>>> upto patch
>>> 12 which also has the core wide lock for tagged cgroups and also calls
>>> newidle_balance() from pick_next_task(). I don't see any
>>> regression.  Of
>>> course
>>> the core sched version of pick_next_task() may be doing more but
>>> comparing with
>>> the __pick_next_task() it doesn't look too horrible.
>> On further testing and investigation, we also agree that spinlock
>> contention
>> is not the major cause for the regression, but we feel that it should
>> be one
>> of the major contributing factors to this performance loss.
>>
>>
> I finally did some code bisection and found the following lines are
> basically responsible for the regression. Commenting them out I don't see
> the regressions. Can you confirm? I am yet to figure if this is needed
> for
> the correctness of core scheduling and if so can we do this better?
>
> -------->8-------------
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index fe3918c..3b3388a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3741,8 +3741,8 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct
> *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>                                  * If there weren't no cookies; we
> don't need
>                                  * to bother with the other siblings.
> */
> -                               if (i == cpu && !rq->core->core_cookie)
> -                                       goto next_class;
> +                               //if (i == cpu && !rq->core->core_cookie)
> +                                       //goto next_class;
>
> continue;
>                         }
AFAICT this condition is not needed for correctness as cookie matching will
sill be enforced. Peter any thoughts? I get the following numbers with 1 DB
and 2 DB instance.

1 DB instance
users  baseline   %idle  core_sched %idle
16     1          84     -5.5% 84
24     1          76     -5% 76
32     1          69     -0.45% 69

2 DB instance
users  baseline   %idle  core_sched %idle
16     1          66     -23.8% 69
24     1          54     -3.1% 57
32     1          42     -21.1%      48

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-01 23:40    [W:0.127 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site