Linux-Kernel Archive: [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Consider CPU affinity when allowing NUMA imbalance in find_idlest_group() [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Consider CPU affinity when allowing NUMA imbalance in find_idlest_group() From: tip-bot2 for K Prateek Nayak Date: Mon Jun 13 2022 - 04:44:06 EST Next message: tip-bot2 for Mel Gorman: "[tip: sched/core] sched/numa: Apply imbalance limitations consistently" Previous message: tip-bot2 for Chengming Zhou: "[tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Optimize and simplify rq leaf_cfs_rq_list" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] The following commit has been merged into the sched/core branch of tip: Commit-ID: f5b2eeb49991047f8f64785e7a7857d6f219d574 Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/f5b2eeb49991047f8f64785e7a7857d6f219d574 Author: K Prateek Nayak
AuthorDate: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 16:42:22 +05:30 Committer: Peter Zijlstra CommitterDate: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:30:00 +02:00 sched/fair: Consider CPU affinity when allowing NUMA imbalance in find_idlest_group() In the case of systems containing multiple LLCs per socket, like AMD Zen systems, users want to spread bandwidth hungry applications across multiple LLCs. Stream is one such representative workload where the best performance is obtained by limiting one stream thread per LLC. To ensure this, users are known to pin the tasks to a specify a subset of the CPUs consisting of one CPU per LLC while running such bandwidth hungry tasks. Suppose we kickstart a multi-threaded task like stream with 8 threads using taskset or numactl to run on a subset of CPUs on a 2 socket Zen3 server where each socket contains 128 CPUs (0-63,128-191 in one socket, 64-127,192-255 in another socket) Eg: numactl -C 0,16,32,48,64,80,96,112 ./stream8 Here each CPU in the list is from a different LLC and 4 of those LLCs are on one socket, while the other 4 are on another socket. Ideally we would prefer that each stream thread runs on a different CPU from the allowed list of CPUs. However, the current heuristics in find_idlest_group() do not allow this during the initial placement. Suppose the first socket (0-63,128-191) is our local group from which we are kickstarting the stream tasks. The first four stream threads will be placed in this socket. When it comes to placing the 5th thread, all the allowed CPUs are from the local group (0,16,32,48) would have been taken. However, the current scheduler code simply checks if the number of tasks in the local group is fewer than the allowed numa-imbalance threshold. This threshold was previously 25% of the NUMA domain span (in this case threshold = 32) but after the v6 of Mel's patchset "Adjust NUMA imbalance for multiple LLCs", got merged in sched-tip, Commit: e496132ebedd ("sched/fair: Adjust the allowed NUMA imbalance when SD_NUMA spans multiple LLCs") it is now equal to number of LLCs in the NUMA domain, for processors with multiple LLCs. (in this case threshold = 8). For this example, the number of tasks will always be within threshold and thus all the 8 stream threads will be woken up on the first socket thereby resulting in sub-optimal performance. The following sched_wakeup_new tracepoint output shows the initial placement of tasks in the current tip/sched/core on the Zen3 machine: stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005036: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5315 prio=120 target_cpu=032 stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005086: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5316 prio=120 target_cpu=048 stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005141: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5317 prio=120 target_cpu=000 stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005183: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5318 prio=120 target_cpu=016 stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005218: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5319 prio=120 target_cpu=016 stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005256: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5320 prio=120 target_cpu=016 stream-5313 [016] d..2. 627.005295: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=5321 prio=120 target_cpu=016 Once the first four threads are distributed among the allowed CPUs of socket one, the rest of the treads start piling on these same CPUs when clearly there are CPUs on the second socket that can be used. Following the initial pile up on a small number of CPUs, though the load-balancer eventually kicks in, it takes a while to get to {4}{4} and even {4}{4} isn't stable as we observe a bunch of ping ponging between {4}{4} to {5}{3} and back before a stable state is reached much later (1 Stream thread per allowed CPU) and no more migration is required. We can detect this piling and avoid it by checking if the number of allowed CPUs in the local group are fewer than the number of tasks running in the local group and use this information to spread the 5th task out into the next socket (after all, the goal in this slowpath is to find the idlest group and the idlest CPU during the initial placement!). The following sched_wakeup_new tracepoint output shows the initial placement of tasks after adding this fix on the Zen3 machine: stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784046: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4487 prio=120 target_cpu=032 stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784123: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4488 prio=120 target_cpu=048 stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784167: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4489 prio=120 target_cpu=000 stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784222: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4490 prio=120 target_cpu=112 stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784271: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4491 prio=120 target_cpu=096 stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784322: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4492 prio=120 target_cpu=080 stream-4485 [016] d..2. 230.784368: sched_wakeup_new: comm=stream pid=4493 prio=120 target_cpu=064 We see that threads are using all of the allowed CPUs and there is no pileup. No output is generated for tracepoint sched_migrate_task with this patch due to a perfect initial placement which removes the need for balancing later on - both across NUMA boundaries and within NUMA boundaries for stream. Following are the results from running 8 Stream threads with and without pinning on a dual socket Zen3 Machine (2 x 64C/128T): During the testing of this patch, the tip sched/core was at commit: 089c02ae2771 "ftrace: Use preemption model accessors for trace header printout" Pinning is done using: numactl -C 0,16,32,48,64,80,96,112 ./stream8 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1 tip sched/core tip sched/core tip sched/core (no pinning) + pinning + this-patch + pinning Copy: 109364.74 (0.00 pct) 94220.50 (-13.84 pct) 158301.28 (44.74 pct) Scale: 109670.26 (0.00 pct) 90210.59 (-17.74 pct) 149525.64 (36.34 pct) Add: 129029.01 (0.00 pct) 101906.00 (-21.02 pct) 186658.17 (44.66 pct) Triad: 127260.05 (0.00 pct) 106051.36 (-16.66 pct) 184327.30 (44.84 pct) Pinning currently hurts the performance compared to unbound case on tip/sched/core. With the addition of this patch, we are able to outperform tip/sched/core by a good margin with pinning. Following are the results from running 16 Stream threads with and without pinning on a dual socket IceLake Machine (2 x 32C/64T): NUMA Topology of Intel Skylake machine: Node 1: 0,2,4,6 ... 126 (Even numbers) Node 2: 1,3,5,7 ... 127 (Odd numbers) Pinning is done using: numactl -C 0-15 ./stream16 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1 5.18.0-rc1 tip sched/core tip sched/core tip sched/core (no pinning) +pinning + this-patch + pinning Copy: 85815.31 (0.00 pct) 149819.21 (74.58 pct) 156807.48 (82.72 pct) Scale: 64795.60 (0.00 pct) 97595.07 (50.61 pct) 99871.96 (54.13 pct) Add: 71340.68 (0.00 pct) 111549.10 (56.36 pct) 114598.33 (60.63 pct) Triad: 68890.97 (0.00 pct) 111635.16 (62.04 pct) 114589.24 (66.33 pct) In case of Icelake machine, with single LLC per socket, pinning across the two sockets reduces cache contention, thus showing great improvement in pinned case which is further benefited by this patch. Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju Acked-by: Mel Gorman Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220407111222.22649-1-kprateek.nayak@xxxxxxx --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 166f5f9..1b2cac7 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -9210,6 +9210,7 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu) case group_has_spare: #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA if (sd->flags & SD_NUMA) { + int imb_numa_nr = sd->imb_numa_nr; #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING int idlest_cpu; /* @@ -9227,13 +9228,22 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu) * Otherwise, keep the task close to the wakeup source * and improve locality if the number of running tasks * would remain below threshold where an imbalance is - * allowed. If there is a real need of migration, - * periodic load balance will take care of it. + * allowed while accounting for the possibility the + * task is pinned to a subset of CPUs. If there is a + * real need of migration, periodic load balance will + * take care of it. */ + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed != NR_CPUS) { + struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask); + + cpumask_and(cpus, sched_group_span(local), p->cpus_ptr); + imb_numa_nr = min(cpumask_weight(cpus), sd->imb_numa_nr); + } + imbalance = abs(local_sgs.idle_cpus - idlest_sgs.idle_cpus); if (!adjust_numa_imbalance(imbalance, local_sgs.sum_nr_running + 1, - sd->imb_numa_nr)) { + imb_numa_nr)) { return NULL; } } Next message: tip-bot2 for Mel Gorman: "[tip: sched/core] sched/numa: Apply imbalance limitations consistently" Previous message: tip-bot2 for Chengming Zhou: "[tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Optimize and simplify rq leaf_cfs_rq_list" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
