From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@amazon.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: wuchi <wuchi.zero@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mohamed@amazon.com,
Abuelfotoh@amazon.com, Hazem <abuehaze@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: BUG Report: Fork benchmark drop by 30% on aarch64
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 10:14:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4a9cc5ab-c538-4427-8a7c-99cb317a283f@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250205151026.13061-1-hagarhem@amazon.com>
Hi Hagar,
On 05/02/2025 16:10, Hagar Hemdan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is about a 30% drop in fork benchmark [1] on aarch64 and a 10%
> drop on x86_64 using kernel v6.13.1.
>
> Git bisect pointed to commit eff6c8ce8d4d ("sched/core: Reduce cost
> of sched_move_task when config autogroup") which merged starting
> v6.4-rc1.
>
> The regression only happens when number of CPUs is equal to number
> of threads [2] that fork test is creating which means it's only visible
> under CPU contention.
>
> I used m6g.xlarge AWS EC2 Instance with 4 vCPUs and 16 GiB RAM for ARM64
> and m6a.xlarge with also 4 vCPUs and 16 GiB RAM for x86_64.
>
> I noticed this regression exists only when autogroup config is enabled.
So '# CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP is not set' in .config so we have:
static inline void sched_autogroup_exit_task(struct task_struct *p) { }
I.e. doing a 'echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_autogroup_enabled' still
shows this issue?
>
> Run the fork test with these combinations and autogroup is enabled:
>
> Arch | commit eff6c8ce8d4d | Fork Result (lps) | %Cpu(s)
> ----------+---------------------+--------------------+------------------
> aarch64 | without | 28677.0 | 3.2 us, 96.7 sy
> aarch64 | with | 19860.7 (30% drop) | 2.7 us, 79.4 sy
> x86_64 | without | 27776.2 | 3.1 us, 96.9 sy
> x86_64 | with | 25020.6 (10% drop) | 4.1 us, 93.2 sy
> ----------+---------------------+--------------------+------------------
Can you rerun with:
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 3e5a6bf587f9..62cc50c79a78 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -9057,7 +9057,7 @@ void sched_move_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
* group changes.
*/
group = sched_get_task_group(tsk);
- if (group == tsk->sched_task_group)
+ if ((group == tsk->sched_task_group) && !(tsk->flags & PF_EXITING))
return;
>
> It seems that the commit is capping the amount of CPU resources that can
> be utilized leaving around 18% idle in case of aarch64 and 3% idle in
> x86_64 case which is likely the main reason behind the reported fork
> regression.
>
> When autogroup is disabled:
>
> Arch | commit eff6c8ce8d4d | Fork Result (lps) | %Cpu(s)
> ----------+---------------------+--------------------+------------------
> aarch64 | without | 19877.8 | 2.2 us, 80.1 sy
> aarch64 | with | 20086.3 (~same) | 1.9 us, 80.2 sy
> x86_64 | without | 24974.2 | 4.9 us, 92.5 sy
> x86_64 | with | 24921.5 (~same) | 4.9 us, 92.4 sy
> ----------+---------------------+--------------------+------------------
>
> So when autogroup disabled, I still see the amount of idle CPU resources
> 18%, 3% on aarch64 and x86_64 regardless of commit.
>
> Is this performance drop an expected of this commit when autogroup is
> enabled?
>
> Thanks,
> Hagar
>
> [1] https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench/blob/master/UnixBench
> [2] Used command: ./Run -c 4 spawn
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-07 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-05 15:10 Hagar Hemdan
2025-02-07 9:14 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2025-02-07 11:07 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-02-10 10:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-02-10 21:31 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-02-11 16:27 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-02-11 21:40 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-02-13 18:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-02-17 22:51 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-02-21 6:44 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-03-03 10:05 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-03-03 13:57 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-02-28 19:39 ` Hagar Hemdan
2025-03-03 10:06 ` Dietmar Eggemann
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=4a9cc5ab-c538-4427-8a7c-99cb317a283f@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=Abuelfotoh@amazon.com \
--cc=Mohamed@amazon.com \
--cc=abuehaze@amazon.com \
--cc=hagarhem@amazon.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wuchi.zero@gmail.com \
/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®