From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<peterz@infradead.org>, <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
<bsegall@google.com>, <bristot@redhat.com>,
<song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>, <prime.zeng@huawei.com>,
<linuxarm@huawei.com>, <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
"shenyang (M)" <shenyang39@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Clear target from cpus to scan in select_idle_cpu
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:46:44 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22f0f0b0-d29e-d142-6854-2effbe4648f1@hisilicon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211125111731.GE3301@suse.de>
On 2021/11/25 19:17, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:54:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
>> Commit 56498cfb045d noticed that "When select_idle_cpu starts scanning for
>> an idle CPU, it starts with a target CPU that has already been checked
>> by select_idle_sibling. This patch starts with the next CPU instead."
>> It only changed the scanning start cpu to target + 1 but still leave
>> the target in the scanning cpumask. The target still have a chance to be
>> checked in the last turn. Fix this by clear the target from the cpus
>> to scan.
>>
>> Fixes: 56498cfb045d ("sched/fair: Avoid a second scan of target in select_idle_cpu")
>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
>
> Did you check the performance of this? When I tried something like this
> in a different context, I found that the cost of clearing the bit was
> more expensive than simply using target + 1. For the target to be
> rescanned, the whole mask would have to be scanned as no other CPUs are
> idle which is the unlikely case. By clearing the bit, a cost is always
> incurred even if the first CPU scanned is idle.
>
Not yet, it's from code. I've launched some tests and we'll see the results tomorrow.
We traced the scanning here and seems the case that scan the whole LLC without
finding an idle cpu has some proportion. On 4-NUMA 128-Core Kunpeng 920 server
tested with mysql, there is ~1% probability for not finding and idle cpu when
sysbench threads is 128. The probability will increase when the load increases.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-25 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-24 8:54 Yicong Yang
2021-11-25 11:17 ` Mel Gorman
2021-11-25 12:46 ` Yicong Yang [this message]
2021-11-26 9:38 ` Yicong Yang
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=22f0f0b0-d29e-d142-6854-2effbe4648f1@hisilicon.com \
--to=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=prime.zeng@huawei.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shenyang39@huawei.com \
--cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®