mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Parth Shah' <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"patrick.bellasi@matbug.net" <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
	"tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	"valentin.schneider@arm.com" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	"qais.yousef@arm.com" <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"pavel@ucw.cz" <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"morten.rasmussen@arm.com" <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	"pjt@google.com" <pjt@google.com>,
	"dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	"tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
	"rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	"daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"dhaval.giani@oracle.com" <dhaval.giani@oracle.com>,
	"quentin.perret@arm.com" <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
	subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
	"ggherdovich@suse.cz" <ggherdovich@suse.cz>,
	"viresh.kumar@linaro.org" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [Discussion v2] Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 16:11:41 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9645e7c625a84bfabac001fd6ef35559@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2bd46086-43ff-f130-8720-8eec694eb55b@linux.ibm.com>

From: Parth Shah
> Sent: 30 September 2019 11:44
...
> 5> Separating AVX512 tasks and latency sensitive tasks on separate cores
> ( -Tim Chen )
> ===========================================================================
> Another usecase we are considering is to segregate those workload that will
> pull down core cpu frequency (e.g. AVX512) from workload that are latency
> sensitive. There are certain tasks that need to provide a fast response
> time (latency sensitive) and they are best scheduled on cpu that has a
> lighter load and not have other tasks running on the sibling cpu that could
> pull down the cpu core frequency.
> 
> Some users are running machine learning batch tasks with AVX512, and have
> observed that these tasks affect the tasks needing a fast response.  They
> have to rely on manual CPU affinity to separate these tasks.  With
> appropriate latency hint on task, the scheduler can be taught to separate them.

Has this been diagnosed properly?
I can't really see how the frequency drop from AVX512 significantly affects latency.
Most tasks that require low latency probably don't do a lot of work.
It is much more likely that the latency issues happen because the AVX512 tasks
are doing very few system calls so can't be pre-empted even by a high priority task.
This 'feature' is hinted by this:
> 2> TurboSched
> ( -Parth Shah )
> ====================
> TurboSched [2] tries to minimize the number of active cores in a socket by
> packing an un-important and low-utilization (named jitter) task on an
> already active core and thus refrains from waking up of a new core if
> possible.

Consider this example of a process that requires low latency (sub 1ms would be good):
- A hardware interrupt (or timer interrupt) wakes up on thread.
- When that thread wakes it wakes up other threads that are sleeping.
- All the threads 'beaver away' for a few ms (processing RTP and other audio).
- They all sleep for the rest of a 10ms period.

The affinities are set so each thread runs on a separate cpu, and all are SCHED_RR.
Now loop all the cpus in userspace (run: while :; do :; done) and see what happens to the latencies.
You really want the SCHED_RR threads to immediately pre-empt the running processes.
But I suspect nothing happens until a timer interrupt to the target cpu.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-02 16:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-30 10:43 Parth Shah
2019-10-02 16:11 ` David Laight [this message]
2019-10-07  8:46   ` Parth Shah
2019-10-07 17:06   ` Tim Chen
2019-10-24  8:19 ` Parth Shah

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=9645e7c625a84bfabac001fd6ef35559@AcuMS.aculab.com \
    --to=david.laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
    --cc=ggherdovich@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@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

Powered by JetHome