Re: [PATCH RFC/TEST] sched: make sync affine wakeups work

[Preeti U Murthy]

On 05/05/2014 10:20 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 05/04/2014 06:11 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 05/04/2014 07:44 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
>>> Hi Rik, Mike
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 05/02/2014 02:13 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether or not this is the right thing to do remains to be seen,
>>>>>> but it does allow us to verify whether or not the wake_affine
>>>>>> strategy of always doing affine wakeups and only disabling them
>>>>>> in a specific circumstance is sound, or needs rethinking...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it needs rethinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know why you want to try this, yes, select_idle_sibling() is very much
>>>>> a two faced little bitch.
>>>>
>>>> My biggest problem with select_idle_sibling and wake_affine in
>>>> general is that it will override NUMA placement, even when
>>>> processes only wake each other up infrequently...
>>>
>>> As far as my understanding goes, the logic in select_task_rq_fair()
>>> does wake_affine() or calls select_idle_sibling() only at those
>>> levels of sched domains where the flag SD_WAKE_AFFINE is set.
>>> This flag is not set at the numa domain and hence they will not be
>>> balancing across numa nodes. So I don't understand how
>>> *these functions* are affecting NUMA placements.
>>
>> Even on 8-node DL980 systems, the NUMA distance in the
>> SLIT table is less than RECLAIM_DISTANCE, and we will
>> do wake_affine across the entire system.
>>
>>> The wake_affine() and select_idle_sibling() will shuttle tasks
>>> within a NUMA node as far as I can see.i.e. if the cpu that the task
>>> previously ran on and the waker cpu belong to the same node.
>>> Else they are not called.
>>
>> That is what I first hoped, too. I was wrong.
>>
>>> If the prev_cpu and the waker cpu are on different NUMA nodes
>>> then naturally the tasks will get shuttled across NUMA nodes but
>>> the culprits are the find_idlest* functions.
>>>    They do a top-down search for the idlest group and cpu, starting
>>> at the NUMA domain *attached to the waker and not the prev_cpu*.
>>> This means that the task will end up on a different NUMA node.
>>> Looks to me that the problem lies here and not in the wake_affine()
>>> and select_idle_siblings().
>>
>> I have a patch for find_idlest_group that takes the NUMA
>> distance between each group and the task's preferred node
>> into account.
>>
>> However, as long as the wake_affine stuff still gets to
>> override it, that does not make much difference :)
>>
> 
> Yeah now I see it. But I still feel wake_affine() and
> select_idle_sibling() are not at fault primarily because when they were
> introduced, I don't think it was foreseen that the cpu topology would
> grow to the extent it is now.
> 
> select_idle_sibling() for instance scans the cpus within the purview of
> the last level cache of a cpu and this was a small set. Hence there was
> no overhead. Now with many cpus sharing the L3 cache, we see an
> overhead. wake_affine() probably did not expect the NUMA nodes to come
> under its governance as well and hence it sees no harm in waking up
> tasks close to the waker because it still believes that it will be
> within a node.
> 
> What has changed is the code around these two functions I feel. Take
> this problem for instance. We ourselves are saying in sd_local_flags()
> that this specific domain is fit for wake affine balance. So naturally
> the logic in wake_affine and select_idle_sibling() will follow.
>   My point is the peripheral code is seeing the negative affect of these
> two functions because they pushed themselves under its ambit.
> 
> Don't you think we should go conservative on the value of
> RECLAIM_DISTANCE in arch specific code at-least? On powerpc we set it to
> 10. Besides, the git log does not tell us the basis on which this value
> was set to a default of 30. Maybe this needs re-thought?

Sorry I overlooked this. Commit 32e45ff43eaf5c17f5a increased the value
to 30 and the reason is also clearly mentioned. It is mentioned that the
value was arbitrarily chosen. I don't know if this will help this
discussion but I thought I would point it out.

Thanks

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/