From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
kerrnel@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:15:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190219151532.GA40581@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whVrNomWXRmCjnBJkosiwiGXz5pYb63aXy=nSPGjvc-1g@mail.gmail.com>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:40 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > If there were close to no VMEXITs, it beat smt=off, if there were lots
> > of VMEXITs it was far far worse. Supposedly hosting people try their
> > very bestest to have no VMEXITs so it mostly works for them (with the
> > obvious exception of single VCPU guests).
> >
> > It's just that people have been bugging me for this crap; and I figure
> > I'd post it now that it's not exploding anymore and let others have at.
>
> The patches didn't look disgusting to me, but I admittedly just
> scanned through them quickly.
>
> Are there downsides (maintenance and/or performance) when core
> scheduling _isn't_ enabled? I guess if it's not a maintenance or
> performance nightmare when off, it's ok to just give people the
> option.
So this bit is the main straight-line performance impact when the
CONFIG_SCHED_CORE Kconfig feature is present (which I expect distros to
enable broadly):
+static inline bool sched_core_enabled(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ return static_branch_unlikely(&__sched_core_enabled) && rq->core_enabled;
+}
static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(struct rq *rq)
{
+ if (sched_core_enabled(rq))
+ return &rq->core->__lock
+
return &rq->__lock;
This should at least in principe keep the runtime overhead down to more
NOPs and a bit bigger instruction cache footprint - modulo compiler
shenanigans.
Here's the code generation impact on x86-64 defconfig:
text data bss dec hex filename
228 48 0 276 114 sched.core.n/cpufreq.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
228 48 0 276 114 sched.core.y/cpufreq.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
4438 96 0 4534 11b6 sched.core.n/completion.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
4438 96 0 4534 11b6 sched.core.y/completion.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
2167 2428 0 4595 11f3 sched.core.n/cpuacct.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
2167 2428 0 4595 11f3 sched.core.y/cpuacct.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
61099 22114 488 83701 146f5 sched.core.n/core.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
70541 25370 508 96419 178a3 sched.core.y/core.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
3262 6272 0 9534 253e sched.core.n/wait_bit.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
3262 6272 0 9534 253e sched.core.y/wait_bit.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
12235 341 96 12672 3180 sched.core.n/rt.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
13073 917 96 14086 3706 sched.core.y/rt.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
10293 477 1928 12698 319a sched.core.n/topology.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
10363 509 1928 12800 3200 sched.core.y/topology.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
886 24 0 910 38e sched.core.n/cpupri.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
886 24 0 910 38e sched.core.y/cpupri.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
1061 64 0 1125 465 sched.core.n/stop_task.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
1077 128 0 1205 4b5 sched.core.y/stop_task.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
18443 365 24 18832 4990 sched.core.n/deadline.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
20019 2189 24 22232 56d8 sched.core.y/deadline.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
1123 8 64 1195 4ab sched.core.n/loadavg.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
1123 8 64 1195 4ab sched.core.y/loadavg.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
1323 8 0 1331 533 sched.core.n/stats.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
1323 8 0 1331 533 sched.core.y/stats.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
1282 164 32 1478 5c6 sched.core.n/isolation.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
1282 164 32 1478 5c6 sched.core.y/isolation.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
1564 36 0 1600 640 sched.core.n/cpudeadline.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
1564 36 0 1600 640 sched.core.y/cpudeadline.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
1640 56 0 1696 6a0 sched.core.n/swait.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
1640 56 0 1696 6a0 sched.core.y/swait.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
1859 244 32 2135 857 sched.core.n/clock.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
1859 244 32 2135 857 sched.core.y/clock.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
2339 8 0 2347 92b sched.core.n/cputime.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
2339 8 0 2347 92b sched.core.y/cputime.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
3014 32 0 3046 be6 sched.core.n/membarrier.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
3014 32 0 3046 be6 sched.core.y/membarrier.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
50027 964 96 51087 c78f sched.core.n/fair.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
51537 2484 96 54117 d365 sched.core.y/fair.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
3192 220 0 3412 d54 sched.core.n/idle.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
3276 252 0 3528 dc8 sched.core.y/idle.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
3633 0 0 3633 e31 sched.core.n/pelt.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
3633 0 0 3633 e31 sched.core.y/pelt.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
3794 160 0 3954 f72 sched.core.n/wait.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
3794 160 0 3954 f72 sched.core.y/wait.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
I'd say this one is representative:
text data bss dec hex filename
12235 341 96 12672 3180 sched.core.n/rt.o (ex sched.core.n/built-in.a)
13073 917 96 14086 3706 sched.core.y/rt.o (ex sched.core.y/built-in.a)
which ~6% bloat is primarily due to the higher rq-lock inlining overhead,
I believe.
This is roughly what you'd expect from a change wrapping all 350+ inlined
instantiations of rq->lock uses. I.e. it might make sense to uninline it.
In terms of long term maintenance overhead, ignoring the overhead of the
core-scheduling feature itself, the rq-lock wrappery is the biggest
ugliness, the rest is mostly isolated.
So if this actually *works* and improves the performance of some real
VMEXIT-poor SMT workloads and allows the enabling of HyperThreading with
untrusted VMs without inviting thousands of guest roots then I'm
cautiously in support of it.
> That all assumes that it works at all for the people who are clamoring
> for this feature, but I guess they can run some loads on it eventually.
> It's a holiday in the US right now ("Presidents' Day"), but maybe we
> can get some numebrs this week?
Such numbers would be *very* helpful indeed.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-19 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-18 16:56 Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/16] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/16] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:13 ` Phil Auld
2019-02-19 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:37 ` Phil Auld
2019-03-18 15:41 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-20 2:29 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-21 21:20 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-22 13:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 20:59 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-23 0:06 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-27 1:02 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-29 13:35 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-29 22:23 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-01 21:35 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-03 20:16 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-05 1:30 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-02 7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 23:28 ` Tim Chen
2019-03-22 23:44 ` Tim Chen
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/16] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/16] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/16] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/16] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/16] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/16] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/16] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/16] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/16] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <20190402064612.GA46500@aaronlu>
2019-04-02 8:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-02 13:20 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-05 14:55 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:09 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-10 4:36 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-11 2:11 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11 3:05 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-11 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 19:58 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-15 16:59 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-16 13:43 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:38 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-10 15:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11 0:11 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-19 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-19 23:16 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/16] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 15/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-02-21 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:28 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-04-04 8:31 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-06 1:36 ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 16/16] sched: Debug bits Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 17:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling Linus Torvalds
2019-02-18 20:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 0:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-19 15:15 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2019-02-22 12:17 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-22 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-22 19:26 ` Tim Chen
2019-02-26 8:26 ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-27 7:54 ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-21 2:53 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-21 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:44 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22 0:34 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22 12:45 ` Mel Gorman
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Mel Gorman
2019-03-08 19:44 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11 4:23 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-11 18:34 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11 23:33 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12 0:20 ` Greg Kerr
2019-03-12 0:47 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12 7:33 ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-12 7:45 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-13 5:55 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14 0:35 ` Tim Chen
2019-03-14 5:30 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14 6:07 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-03-18 6:56 ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-12 19:07 ` Pawan Gupta
2019-03-26 7:32 ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-26 7:56 ` Aaron Lu
2019-02-19 22:07 ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-20 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-20 18:33 ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-22 14:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-07 22:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-20 18:43 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-01 2:54 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-14 15:28 ` Julien Desfossez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190219151532.GA40581@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome