From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: chris hyser <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@oracle.com>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [SchedulerWakeupLatency] Skipping Idle Cores and CPU Search
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:47:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c1b24dd5-dce9-61ed-baba-a70f08276bf5@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ffcff197-122f-c5bd-91f4-0ff8600be04d@oracle.com>
On 10/07/2020 01:08, chris hyser wrote:
[...]
>> D) Desired behavior:
>
> Reduce the maximum wake-up latency of designated CFS tasks by skipping
> some or all of the idle CPU and core searches by setting a maximum idle
> CPU search value (maximum loop iterations).
>
> Searching 'ALL' as the maximum would be the default and implies the
> current code path which may or may not search up to ALL. Searching 0
> would result in the least latency (shown with experimental results to be
> included if/when patchset goes up). One of the considerations is that
> the maximum length of the search is a function of the size of the LLC
> scheduling domain and this is platform dependent. Whether 'some', i.e. a
> numerical value limiting the search can be used to "normalize" this
> latency across differing scheduling domain sizes is under investigation.
> Clearly differing hardware will have many other significant differences,
> but in different sized and dynamically sized VMs running on fleets of
> common HW this may be interesting.
I assume that this task-specific feature could coexists in
select_idle_core() and select_idle_cpu() with the already existing
runtime heuristics (test_idle_cores() and the two sched features
mentioned under E/F) to reduce the idle CPU search space on a busy system.
>> E/F) Existing knobs (and limitations):
>
> There are existing sched_feat: SIS_AVG_CPU, SIS_PROP that attempt to
> short circuit the idle cpu search path in select_idle_cpu() based on
> estimations of the current costs of searching. Neither provides a means
[...]
>> H) Range Analysis:
>
> The knob is a positive integer representing "max number of CPUs to
> search". The default would be 'ALL' which could be translated as
> INT_MAX. '0 searches' translates to 0. Other values represent a max
> limit on the search, in this case iterations of a for loop.
IMHO the opposite use case for this feature (favour high throughput over
short wakeup latency (Facebook) is already cured by the changes
introduced by commit 10e2f1acd010 ("sched/core: Rewrite and improve
select_idle_siblings()"), i.e. with the current implementation of sis().
It seems that they don't need an additional per-task feature on top of
the default system-wide runtime heuristics.
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-20 9:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87v9kv2545.derkling@matbug.com>
[not found] ` <87h7wd15v2.derkling@matbug.net>
[not found] ` <87imgrlrqi.derkling@matbug.net>
[not found] ` <87mu5sqwkt.derkling@matbug.net>
[not found] ` <87eer42clt.derkling@matbug.net>
2020-06-23 7:29 ` Scheduler wakeup path tuning surface: Use-Cases and Requirements Patrick Bellasi
2020-06-23 7:49 ` [SchedulerWakeupLatency] Per-task vruntime wakeup bonus Patrick Bellasi
2020-07-10 13:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-07-10 19:59 ` Patrick Bellasi
2020-07-13 12:59 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-07-16 16:48 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-07-17 12:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-07-16 19:54 ` Patrick Bellasi
2020-07-17 14:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-07-09 12:07 ` [SchedulerTaskPacking] Small background task packing Parth Shah
2020-07-09 23:08 ` [SchedulerWakeupLatency] Skipping Idle Cores and CPU Search chris hyser
2020-07-20 8:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2020-07-22 18:56 ` chris hyser
2020-07-20 15:20 ` [SchedulerTaskPacking] Small background task packing Vincent Guittot
2020-07-23 9:33 ` Parth Shah
2020-07-23 9:31 ` [SchedulerWakeupLatency] Skip energy aware task placement Dietmar Eggemann
2020-07-29 14:01 ` Quentin Perret
2020-11-12 6:13 ` Scheduler wakeup path tuning surface: Interface discussion 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=c1b24dd5-dce9-61ed-baba-a70f08276bf5@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®