mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	rohit.k.jain@oracle.com
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
	vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression on vcpu_is_preempted()
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 18:21:11 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <625ce99b-8ec3-f807-99ac-1dc32695deca@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <89856431-e68b-ebe9-90cb-e46ed8065659@huawei.com>

Hi Miaohe,

On 10/28/22 4:48 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> Hi all scheduler experts:
>    When we run java gc in our 8 vcpus guest *without KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME enabled*, the output looks like below:
>      With ParallelGCThreads=4 and ConcGCThreads=4, we have:
> 	G1 Young Generation: 1 times 1786 ms
> 	G1 Old Generation: 1 times 1022 ms
>      With ParallelGCThreads=5 and ConcGCThreads=5, we have:
> 	G1 Young Generation: 1 times 1557 ms
> 	G1 Old Generation: 1 times 1020 ms
> 
>    This meets our expectation. But *with KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME enabled* in our guest, the output looks like this:
>      With ParallelGCThreads=4 and ConcGCThreads=4, we have:
> 	G1 Young Generation: 1 times 1637 ms
> 	G1 Old Generation: 1 times 1022 ms
>      With ParallelGCThreads=5 and ConcGCThreads=5, we have:
> 	G1 Young Generation: 1 times 2164 ms
> 				      ^^^^
> 	G1 Old Generation: 1 times 1024 ms
> 
>    The duration of G1 Young Generation is far beyond our expectation when gc threads = 5. And we found the root cause
> is that when KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME is enabled *there are much more(3k+) cpu migrations for java gc threads*. It's due to
> the below commit:
> 
>    commit 247f2f6f3c706b40b5f3886646f3eb53671258bf
>    Author: Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@oracle.com>
>    Date:   Wed May 2 13:52:10 2018 -0700
> 
>      sched/core: Don't schedule threads on pre-empted vCPUs
> 
>      In paravirt configurations today, spinlocks figure out whether a vCPU is
>      running to determine whether or not spinlock should bother spinning. We
>      can use the same logic to prioritize CPUs when scheduling threads. If a
>      vCPU has been pre-empted, it will incur the extra cost of VMENTER and
>      the time it actually spends to be running on the host CPU. If we had
>      other vCPUs which were actually running on the host CPU and idle we
>      should schedule threads there.
> 
>    When scheduler tries to select a CPU to run the gc thread, available_idle_cpu() will check whether vcpu_is_preempted().
> It will choose other vcpu to run gc threads when the current vcpu is preempted. But the preempted vcpu has no other work
> to do except continuing to do gc. In our guest, there are more vcpus than java gc threads. So there could always be some
> available vcpus when scheduler tries to select a idle vcpu (runing on host). This leads to lots of cpu migrations and results
> in regression.

So you want the preempted idle cpus to run gc threads to maximize the
gc throughput, but available_idle_cpu() keeps them from being selected.
In theory, load balancing will help spreading load to these cpus (and
make them VMENTERed), so have you checked that the gc threads showed a
tendency to stack on same cpus?

  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-28 10:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-28  8:48 Miaohe Lin
2022-10-28 10:21 ` Abel Wu [this message]
2022-10-29  2:27   ` Miaohe Lin
2022-10-29  8:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-29  9:15   ` Miaohe Lin
2022-10-29 12:23     ` Peter Zijlstra

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=625ce99b-8ec3-f807-99ac-1dc32695deca@bytedance.com \
    --to=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rohit.k.jain@oracle.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.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®