LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com,
	dhaval.giani@oracle.com, rohit.k.jain@oracle.com,
	umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk,
	riel@surriel.com, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 08/11] sched/fair: Optimize SIS_FOLD
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 16:22:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180530143106.291552903@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180530142236.667774973@infradead.org>

[-- Attachment #1: peterz-sis-again-11.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2492 bytes --]

Tracing showed that the per-cpu scanning cost of __select_idle_core()
(~120ns) was significantly higher than that of __select_idle_cpu()
(~40ns).

This means that, even when reduced to the minimal scan, we're still 3x
more expensive than the simple search.

perf annotate suggested this was mostly due to cache-misses on the
additional cpumasks used.

However, we can mitigate this by only doing the more expensive search
when there is a good chance it is beneficial. After all, when there
are no idle cores to be had, there's no point in looking for any
(SMT>2 might want to try without this).

Clearing has_idle_cores early (without an exhaustive search) should be
fine because we're eager to set it when a core goes idle again.

FOLD

1:        0.568188455 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  0.40% )
2:        0.643264625 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.27% )
5:        2.385378263 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.12% )
10:       3.808555491 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.46% )
20:       6.431994272 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.21% )
40:       9.423539507 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  2.07% )

FOLD+

1:        0.554694881 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  0.42% )
2:        0.632730119 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.84% )
5:        2.230432464 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.17% )
10:       3.549957778 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.55% )
20:       6.118364255 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  0.72% )
40:       9.515406550 seconds time elapsed    ( +-  1.74% )

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c     |    5 ++++-
 kernel/sched/features.h |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6382,6 +6382,8 @@ static int __select_idle_core(struct tas
 		}
 	}
 
+	set_idle_cores(target, 0);
+
 	return best_cpu;
 }
 
@@ -6477,7 +6479,8 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_s
 	time = local_clock();
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
-	if (sched_feat(SIS_FOLD) && static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present))
+	if (sched_feat(SIS_FOLD) && static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present) &&
+	    test_idle_cores(target, false))
 		cpu = __select_idle_core(p, sd, target, nr, &loops);
 	else
 #endif
--- a/kernel/sched/features.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ SCHED_FEAT(SIS_PROP, true)
 
 SCHED_FEAT(SIS_AGE, true)
 SCHED_FEAT(SIS_ONCE, true)
-SCHED_FEAT(SIS_FOLD, false)
+SCHED_FEAT(SIS_FOLD, true)
 
 /*
  * Issue a WARN when we do multiple update_rq_clock() calls

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-05-30 14:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-30 14:22 [RFC 00/11] select_idle_sibling rework Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 01/11] sched/fair: Fix select_idle_cpu()s cost accounting Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 02/11] sched/fair: Age the average idle time Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 03/11] sched/fair: Only use time once Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 04/11] sched/topology: Introduce sched_domain_cores() Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 05/11] sched/fair: Re-arrange select_idle_cpu() Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 06/11] sched/fair: Make select_idle_cpu() proportional to cores Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 07/11] sched/fair: Fold the select_idle_sibling() scans Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 09/11] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_PROP Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 10/11] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AGE/SIS_ONCE Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 14:22 ` [RFC 11/11] sched/fair: Remove SIS_FOLD Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-19 22:06 ` [RFC 00/11] select_idle_sibling rework Matt Fleming
2018-06-20 22:20   ` Steven Sistare

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=20180530143106.291552903@infradead.org \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@surriel.com \
    --cc=rohit.k.jain@oracle.com \
    --cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \
    --cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
    --cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [RFC 08/11] sched/fair: Optimize SIS_FOLD' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).