mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
	joshdon@google.com, brho@google.com, briannorris@chromium.org,
	nhuck@google.com, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org,
	void@manifault.com, libo.chen@oracle.com,
	srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue execution locality
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:16:08 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZH1okIz83ELfjy4o@BLR-5CG11610CF.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB11Zwt9bgOJrNVDfs5yY7Dws_vnQBuXZHErSsbn9Edhw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Vincent,

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 06:12:45PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 13:18, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > So wakeup based placement is mostly all about LLC, and given this thing
> > has dinky small LLCs it will pile up on the one LLC you target and leave
> > the others idle until the regular idle balancer decides to make an
> > appearance and move some around.
> >
> > But if these are fairly short running tasks, I can well see that not
> > going to help much.
> >
> >
> > Much of this was tuned back when there was 1 L3 per Node; something
> > which is still more or less true for Intel but clearly not for these
> > things.
> >
> >
> > The below is a bit crude and completely untested, but it might help. The
> > flip side of that coin is of course that people are going to complain
> > about how selecting a CPU is more expensive now and how this hurts their
> > performance :/
> >
> > Basically it will try and iterate all L3s in a node; wakeup will still
> > refuse to cross node boundaries.
> 
> That remember me some discussion about system with fast on die
> interconnect where we would like to run wider than llc at wakeup (i.e.
> DIE level) something like the CLUSTER level but on the other side of
> MC
>

Adding Libo Chen who was a part of this discussion. IIRC, the problem was
that there was no MC domain on that system, which would have made the
SMT domain to be the sd_llc. But since the core is single threaded,
the SMT domain would be degnerated thus leaving no domain which has
the SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag.

If I understand correctly, Peter's patch won't help in such a
situation.

However, it should help POWER10 which has the SMT domain as the LLC
and previously it was observed that moving the wakeup search to the
parent domain was helpful (Ref:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1617341874-1205-1-git-send-email-ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com/)


--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.


> Another possibility to investigate would be that each wakeup of a
> worker is mostly unrelated to the previous one and it cares only
> waker. so we should use -1 for the prev_cpu
> 
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 48b6f0ca13ac..ddb7f16a07a9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -7027,6 +7027,33 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
> >         return idle_cpu;
> >  }
> >
> > +static int
> > +select_idle_node(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target)
> > +{
> > +       struct sched_domain *sd_node = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_node, target));
> > +       struct sched_group *sg;
> > +
> > +       if (!sd_node || sd_node == sd)
> > +               return -1;
> > +
> > +       sg = sd_node->groups;
> > +       do {
> > +               int cpu = cpumask_first(sched_group_span(sg));
> > +               struct sched_domain *sd_child;
> > +
> > +               sd_child = per_cpu(sd_llc, cpu);
> > +               if (sd_child != sd) {
> > +                       int i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd_child, test_idle_cores(cpu), cpu);
> > +                       if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> > +                               return i;
> > +               }
> > +
> > +               sg = sg->next;
> > +       } while (sg != sd_node->groups);
> > +
> > +       return -1;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Scan the asym_capacity domain for idle CPUs; pick the first idle one on which
> >   * the task fits. If no CPU is big enough, but there are idle ones, try to
> > @@ -7199,6 +7226,12 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> >         if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> >                 return i;
> >
> > +       if (sched_feat(SIS_NODE)) {
> > +               i = select_idle_node(p, sd, target);
> > +               if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> > +                       return i;
> > +       }
> > +
> >         return target;
> >  }
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/features.h b/kernel/sched/features.h
> > index ee7f23c76bd3..f965cd4a981e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/features.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
> > @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ SCHED_FEAT(TTWU_QUEUE, true)
> >   */
> >  SCHED_FEAT(SIS_PROP, false)
> >  SCHED_FEAT(SIS_UTIL, true)
> > +SCHED_FEAT(SIS_NODE, true)
> >
> >  /*
> >   * Issue a WARN when we do multiple update_rq_clock() calls
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > index 678446251c35..d2e0e2e496a6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > @@ -1826,6 +1826,7 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_llc);
> >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, sd_llc_size);
> >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, sd_llc_id);
> >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain_shared __rcu *, sd_llc_shared);
> > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_node);
> >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_numa);
> >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_asym_packing);
> >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_asym_cpucapacity);
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > index ca4472281c28..d94cbc2164ca 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > @@ -667,6 +667,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_llc);
> >  DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, sd_llc_size);
> >  DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, sd_llc_id);
> >  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain_shared __rcu *, sd_llc_shared);
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_node);
> >  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_numa);
> >  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_asym_packing);
> >  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain __rcu *, sd_asym_cpucapacity);
> > @@ -691,6 +692,18 @@ static void update_top_cache_domain(int cpu)
> >         per_cpu(sd_llc_id, cpu) = id;
> >         rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, cpu), sds);
> >
> > +       while (sd && sd->parent) {
> > +               /*
> > +                * SD_NUMA is the first domain spanning nodes, therefore @sd
> > +                * must be the domain that spans a single node.
> > +                */
> > +               if (sd->parent->flags & SD_NUMA)
> > +                       break;
> > +
> > +               sd = sd->parent;
> > +       }
> > +       rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_node, cpu), sd);
> > +
> >         sd = lowest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_NUMA);
> >         rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_numa, cpu), sd);
> >

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-06-05  4:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-19  0:16 Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 01/24] workqueue: Drop the special locking rule for worker->flags and worker_pool->flags Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 02/24] workqueue: Cleanups around process_scheduled_works() Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 03/24] workqueue: Not all work insertion needs to wake up a worker Tejun Heo
2023-05-23  9:54   ` Lai Jiangshan
2023-05-23 21:37     ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08  1:15   ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 04/24] workqueue: Rename wq->cpu_pwqs to wq->cpu_pwq Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 05/24] workqueue: Relocate worker and work management functions Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 06/24] workqueue: Remove module param disable_numa and sysfs knobs pool_ids and numa Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 07/24] workqueue: Use a kthread_worker to release pool_workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 08/24] workqueue: Make per-cpu pool_workqueues allocated and released like unbound ones Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 09/24] workqueue: Make unbound workqueues to use per-cpu pool_workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-22  6:41   ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-05-22 12:27     ` Dennis Dalessandro
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 10/24] workqueue: Rename workqueue_attrs->no_numa to ->ordered Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 11/24] workqueue: Rename NUMA related names to use pod instead Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 12/24] workqueue: Move wq_pod_init() below workqueue_init() Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 13/24] workqueue: Initialize unbound CPU pods later in the boot Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:16 ` [PATCH 14/24] workqueue: Generalize unbound CPU pods Tejun Heo
2023-05-30  8:06   ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-07  1:50     ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-30 21:18   ` Sandeep Dhavale
2023-05-31 12:14     ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-07 22:13       ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-08  3:01         ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-08 22:50           ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-09  3:43             ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-14 18:49               ` Sandeep Dhavale
2023-06-21 20:14                 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-19  4:30             ` Swapnil Sapkal
2023-06-21 20:38               ` Tejun Heo
2023-07-05  7:04             ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-07-05 18:39               ` Tejun Heo
2023-07-11  3:02                 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-07-31 23:52                   ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08  1:08                     ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 15/24] workqueue: Add tools/workqueue/wq_dump.py which prints out workqueue configuration Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 16/24] workqueue: Modularize wq_pod_type initialization Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 17/24] workqueue: Add multiple affinity scopes and interface to select them Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 18/24] workqueue: Factor out work to worker assignment and collision handling Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 19/24] workqueue: Factor out need_more_worker() check and worker wake-up Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 20/24] workqueue: Add workqueue_attrs->__pod_cpumask Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 21/24] workqueue: Implement non-strict affinity scope for unbound workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 22/24] workqueue: Add "Affinity Scopes and Performance" section to documentation Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 23/24] workqueue: Add pool_workqueue->cpu Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:17 ` [PATCH 24/24] workqueue: Implement localize-to-issuing-CPU for unbound workqueues Tejun Heo
2023-05-19  0:41 ` [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue execution locality Linus Torvalds
2023-05-19 22:35   ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-19 23:03     ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-23  1:51       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-05-23 17:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-05-23 20:08           ` Rik van Riel
2023-05-23 21:36           ` Sandeep Dhavale
2023-05-23 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-23 16:12   ` Vincent Guittot
2023-05-24  7:34     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-24 13:15       ` Vincent Guittot
2023-06-05  4:46     ` Gautham R. Shenoy [this message]
2023-06-07 14:42       ` Libo Chen
2023-05-26  1:12   ` Tejun Heo
2023-05-30 11:32     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-12 23:56 ` Brian Norris
2023-06-13  2:48   ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-13  9:26     ` Pin-yen Lin
2023-06-21 19:16       ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-21 19:31         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-29  9:49           ` Pin-yen Lin
2023-07-03 21:47             ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08  1:22 ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-08  2:58   ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-08  7:59     ` Tejun Heo
2023-08-18  4:05     ` K Prateek Nayak

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=ZH1okIz83ELfjy4o@BLR-5CG11610CF.amd.com \
    --to=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=brho@google.com \
    --cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joshdon@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=libo.chen@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nhuck@google.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=void@manifault.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®