Re: [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Multi-LLC select_idle_sibling()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 02:00:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 01:56:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 01:13:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > This DeathStarBench thing seems to suggest that scanning up to 4 CCDs
> > > isn't too much of a bother; so perhaps something like so?
> > > 
> > > (on top of tip/sched/core from just a few hours ago, as I had to 'fix'
> > > this patch and force pushed the thing)
> > > 
> > > And yeah, random hacks and heuristics here :/ Does there happen to be
> > > additional topology that could aid us here? Does the CCD fabric itself
> > > have a distance metric we can use?
> > 
> >   https://www.anandtech.com/show/16529/amd-epyc-milan-review/4
> > 
> > Specifically:
> > 
> >   https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16529/Bounce-7763.png
> > 
> > That seems to suggest there are some very minor distance effects in the
> > CCD fabric. I didn't read the article too closely, but you'll note that
> > the first 4 CCDs have inter-CCD latency < 100 while the rest has > 100.
> > 
> > Could you also test on a Zen2 Epyc, does that require nr=8 instead of 4?
> > Should we perhaps write it like: 32 / llc_size ?
> > 
> > The Zen2 picture:
> > 
> >   https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16315/Bounce-7742.png
> > 
> > Shows a more pronounced CCD fabric topology, you can really see the 2
> > CCX inside the CCD but also there's two ligher green squares around the
> > CCDs themselves.
> 
> I can't seem to find pretty pictures for Zen4 Epyc; what does that want?
> That's even bigger at 96/8=12 LLCs afaict.

One way to fix all this would be by having arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c set
an AMD specific set_sched_topology() that has a CCD domain above the MC
and below the DIE domain that groups 'near' CCDs together based on some
AMD specific topology information.

Then for small systems that will probably be just a single CCD domain
and the degenerate code will make it go away, but for these large
systems it will do what is right for their respective configuration.

Then, since this new multi-llc code uses MC->parent it will end up on
the fancy new CCD domain and not scan the *entire* socket.

Hmm?