Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] sched: SIS_CORE to disable idle core search

[Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>]

On 6/27/19 6:59 AM, subhra mazumdar wrote:
> Use SIS_CORE to disable idle core search. For some workloads
> select_idle_core becomes a scalability bottleneck, removing it improves
> throughput. Also there are workloads where disabling it can hurt latency,
> so need to have an option.
> 
> Signed-off-by: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index c1ca88e..6a74808 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6280,9 +6280,11 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>  	if (!sd)
>  		return target;
> 
> -	i = select_idle_core(p, sd, target);
> -	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> -		return i;
> +	if (sched_feat(SIS_CORE)) {
> +		i = select_idle_core(p, sd, target);
> +		if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> +			return i;
> +	}

This can have significant performance loss if disabled. The select_idle_core spreads
workloads quickly across the cores, hence disabling this leaves much of the work to
be offloaded to load balancer to move task across the cores. Latency sensitive
and long running multi-threaded workload should see the regression under this conditions.

Also, systems like POWER9 has sd_llc as a pair of core only. So it
won't benefit from the limits and hence also hiding your code in select_idle_cpu
behind static keys will be much preferred.

> 
>  	i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, target);
>  	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> 


Best,
Parth