Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 | From | "Li, Aubrey" <> | Date | Sat, 18 May 2019 09:08:12 +0800 |
| |
On 2019/5/18 8:58, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2019/4/30 12:42, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>>> What's interesting is how in the over-saturated case (the last three >>>> rows: 128, 256 and 512 total threads) coresched-SMT leaves 20-30% CPU >>>> performance on the floor according to the load figures. >>> > > Sorry for a delay, I got a chance to obtain some profiling results. Here > is the story on my side. I still used the previous testing 128/128 case > (256 threads totally), and focus on CPU53(randomly pickup) only. > > Firstly, mpstat reports cpu utilization, > - baseline is 100%, > - coresched-SMT is 87.51% > > Then I traced sched_switch trace point, in 100s sampling period, > - baseline context switch 14083 times, next task idle 0 times > - coresched-SMT context switch 15101 times, next task idle 880 times > > So I guess pick_next_task() is mostly the interesting place, then I > dig into the trace log on coresched-SMT case: > - CPU53 selected idle task 767 times (matched with the data of sched_switch) > > There are 3 branches of CPU53 selecting idle task in pick_next_task(): > - pick pre selected 765 times > - unconstrained pick 1 times > - picked: swapper/53/0 1 times > > Where CPU53's "pick pre selected idle task" from? I guess its from its > brother CPU1, so I checked CPU1's trace log and found: > - CPU1 helped its sibling CPU53 select idle task 800 times > > So for CPU53, the most interesting part occurs in pick_task(), that is: > -The sibling CPU1 helped to select idle task in pick_task() > > Forgive me to paste this routine() here: > ===================================================== > +// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions > +static struct task_struct * > +pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max) > +{ > + struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick; > + unsigned long cookie = 0UL; > + > + /* > + * We must not rely on rq->core->core_cookie here, because we fail to reset > + * rq->core->core_cookie on new picks, such that we can detect if we need > + * to do single vs multi rq task selection. > + */ > + > + if (max && max->core_cookie) { > + WARN_ON_ONCE(rq->core->core_cookie != max->core_cookie); > + cookie = max->core_cookie; > + } > + > + class_pick = class->pick_task(rq); > + if (!cookie) > + return class_pick; > + > + cookie_pick = sched_core_find(rq, cookie); > + if (!class_pick) > + return cookie_pick; > + > + /* > + * If class > max && class > cookie, it is the highest priority task on > + * the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with > + * the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint. > + */ > + if (cpu_prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) && core_prio_less(max, class_pick)) > + return class_pick; > + > + return cookie_pick; > +} > ================================================================= > > And the most related log of the case: > ================================================================= > <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514992: __schedule: cpu(1): selected: gemmbench/21294 ffff888823df8900 > <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514992: __schedule: max: gemmbench/21294 ffff888823df8900 > <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514995: __schedule: (swapper/53/0;140,0,0) ?< (sysbench/21503;140,457178607302,0) > <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514996: __schedule: (gemmbench/21294;119,219715519947,0) ?< (sysbench/21503;119,457178607302,0) > <...>-21553 [001] dN.. 87341.514996: __schedule: cpu(53): selected: swapper/53/0 0 > > It said, > - CPU1 selected gemmbench for itself > - and gemmbench was assigned to max of this core > - then CPU1 helped CPU53 to pick_task() > -- CPU1 used class->pick_task(), selected sysbench for CPU53 > -- CPU1 used cookie_pick, selected swapper(idle task) for CPU53 > -- the class_pick(sysbench) unfortunately didn't pass the priority check > - idle task picked up at the end(sadly). > > So, I think if we want to improve CPU utilization under this scenario, > the straightforward tweak is picking up class_pick if cookie_pick is idle.
Another quick thought is, in CPU53's own path of pick_next_task, give up pre selected(by CPU1) if pre selected is idle?
> But I know, this is a violation of the design philosophy(avoid L1TF) of > this proposal. > > Does it make sense to add a knob to switch security/performance? > Welcome any comments! > > Thanks, > -Aubrey >
| |