mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vinicius Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/balance: Skip unnecessary updates to idle load balancer's flags
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 00:40:26 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zlygeqy+SVs1KZYW@chenyu5-mobl2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240531205452.65781-1-tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>

On 2024-05-31 at 13:54:52 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> We observed that the overhead on trigger_load_balance(), now renamed
> sched_balance_trigger(), has risen with a system's core counts.
> 
> For an OLTP workload running 6.8 kernel on a 2 socket x86 systems
> having 96 cores/socket, we saw that 0.7% cpu cycles are spent in
> trigger_load_balance(). On older systems with fewer cores/socket, this
> function's overhead was less than 0.1%.
> 
> The cause of this overhead was that there are multiple cpus calling
> kick_ilb(flags), updating the balancing work needed to a common idle
> load balancer cpu. The ilb_cpu's flags field got updated unconditionally
> with atomic_fetch_or().  The atomic read and writes to ilb_cpu's flags
> causes much cache bouncing and cpu cycles overhead. This is seen in the
> annotated profile below.
> 
>              kick_ilb():
>              if (ilb_cpu < 0)
>                test   %r14d,%r14d
>              ↑ js     6c
>              flags = atomic_fetch_or(flags, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu));
>                mov    $0x2d600,%rdi
>                movslq %r14d,%r8
>                mov    %rdi,%rdx
>                add    -0x7dd0c3e0(,%r8,8),%rdx
>              arch_atomic_read():
>   0.01         mov    0x64(%rdx),%esi
>  35.58         add    $0x64,%rdx
>              arch_atomic_fetch_or():
> 
>              static __always_inline int arch_atomic_fetch_or(int i, atomic_t *v)
>              {
>              int val = arch_atomic_read(v);
> 
>              do { } while (!arch_atomic_try_cmpxchg(v, &val, val | i));
>   0.03  157:   mov    %r12d,%ecx
>              arch_atomic_try_cmpxchg():
>              return arch_try_cmpxchg(&v->counter, old, new);
>   0.00         mov    %esi,%eax
>              arch_atomic_fetch_or():
>              do { } while (!arch_atomic_try_cmpxchg(v, &val, val | i));
>                or     %esi,%ecx
>              arch_atomic_try_cmpxchg():
>              return arch_try_cmpxchg(&v->counter, old, new);
>   0.01         lock   cmpxchg %ecx,(%rdx)
>  42.96       ↓ jne    2d2
>              kick_ilb():
> 
> With instrumentation, we found that 81% of the updates do not result in
> any change in the ilb_cpu's flags.  That is, multiple cpus are asking
> the ilb_cpu to do the same things over and over again, before the ilb_cpu
> has a chance to run NOHZ load balance.
> 
> Skip updates to ilb_cpu's flags if no new work needs to be done.
> Such updates do not change ilb_cpu's NOHZ flags.  This requires an extra
> atomic read but it is less expensive than frequent unnecessary atomic
> updates that generate cache bounces.

A race condition is that many CPUs choose the same ilb_cpu and ask it to trigger
the nohz idle balance. This is because find_new_ilb() always finds the first
nohz idle CPU. I wonder if we could change the
for_each_cpu_and(ilb_cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask, hk_mask)
into
for_each_cpu_wrap(ilb_cpu,  cpumask_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask, hk_mask), this_cpu+1) 
so different ilb_cpu might be found by different CPUs.
Then the extra atomic read could brings less cache bounces.

> 
> We saw that on the OLTP workload, cpu cycles from trigger_load_balance()
> (or sched_balance_trigger()) got reduced from 0.7% to 0.2%.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8a5b1ae0aa55..9ab6dff6d8ac 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -11891,6 +11891,13 @@ static void kick_ilb(unsigned int flags)
>  	if (ilb_cpu < 0)
>  		return;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Don't bother if no new NOHZ balance work items for ilb_cpu,
> +	 * i.e. all bits in flags are already set in ilb_cpu.
> +	 */
> +	if ((atomic_read(nohz_flags(ilb_cpu)) & flags) == flags)

Maybe also mention in the comment that when above statement is true, the
current ilb_cpu's flags is not 0 and in NOHZ_KICK_MASK, so return directly
here is safe(anyway just 2 cents)

Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>

thanks,
Chenyu

> +		return;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Access to rq::nohz_csd is serialized by NOHZ_KICK_MASK; he who sets
>  	 * the first flag owns it; cleared by nohz_csd_func().
> -- 
> 2.32.0
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-02 16:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-05-31 20:54 Tim Chen
2024-06-02 16:40 ` Chen Yu [this message]
2024-06-03 16:13   ` Tim Chen
2024-06-04  2:10     ` Chen Yu
2024-06-04 22:32       ` Tim Chen
2024-06-04 14:37 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-06-05 14:54 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Tim Chen
2024-06-05 17:07   ` Tim Chen

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=Zlygeqy+SVs1KZYW@chenyu5-mobl2 \
    --to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vinicius.gomes@intel.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®