Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

From: Brendan Jackman
Date: Thu Aug 03 2017 - 06:53:31 EST


On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> >
>> > > That makes sense that we multiply slave's flips by a factor because
>> > > its low, but I still didn't get why the factor is chosen to be
>> > > llc_size instead of something else for the multiplication with slave
>> > > (slave * factor).
>> > Yeah I don't know why llc_size was chosen...
>> static void update_top_cache_domain(int cpu)
>> {
>> struct sched_domain_shared *sds = NULL;
>> struct sched_domain *sd;
>> int id = cpu;
>> int size = 1;
>> sd = highest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES);
>> if (sd) {
>> id = cpumask_first(sched_domain_span(sd));
>> size = cpumask_weight(sched_domain_span(sd));
>> sds = sd->shared;
>> }
>> rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_llc, cpu), sd);
>> per_cpu(sd_llc_size, cpu) = size;
>> The goal of wake wide was to approximate when pulling would be a futile
>> consolidation effort and counterproductive to scaling. 'course with
>> ever increasing socket size, any 1:N waker is ever more likely to run
>> out of CPU for its one and only self (slamming into scaling wall)
>> before it needing to turn its minions loose to conquer the world.
>> Something else to consider: network interrupt waking multiple workers
>> at high frequency. If the waking CPU is idle, do you really want to
>> place a worker directly in front of a tattoo artist, or is it better
>> off nearly anywhere but there?
>> If the box is virtual, with no topology exposed (or real but ancient)
>> to let select_idle_sibling() come to the rescue, two workers can even
>> get tattooed simultaneously (see sync wakeup).
> Heuristics are hard, news at 11. I think messing with wake_wide() itself is too
> big of a hammer, we probably need a middle ground. I'm messing with it right
> now so it's too early to say for sure, but i _suspect_ the bigger latencies we
> see are not because we overload the cpu we're trying to pull to, but because
> when we fail to do the wake_affine() we only look at siblings of the affine_sd
> instead of doing the full "find the idlest cpu in the land!" thing.

This is the problem I've been hitting lately. My use case is 1 task per
CPU on ARM big.LITTLE (asymmetrical CPU capacity). The workload is 1
task per CPU, they all do X amount of work then pthread_barrier_wait
(i.e. sleep until the last task finishes its X and hits the barrier). On
big.LITTLE, the tasks which get a "big" CPU finish faster, and then
those CPUs pull over the tasks that are still running:

v CPU v ->time->

0 (big) 11111 /333
1 (big) 22222 /444|
2 (LITTLE) 333333/
3 (LITTLE) 444444/

Now when task 4 hits the barrier (at |) and wakes the others up, there
are 4 tasks with prev_cpu=<big> and 0 tasks with
prev_cpu=<little>. Assuming that those wakeups happen on CPU4,
regardless of wake_affine, want_affine means that we'll only look in
sd_llc (cpus 0 and 1), so tasks will be unnecessarily coscheduled on the
bigs until the next load balance, something like this:

v CPU v ->time->

0 (big) 11111 /333 31313\33333
1 (big) 22222 /444|424\4444444
2 (LITTLE) 333333/ \222222
3 (LITTLE) 444444/ \1111

> I _think_
> the answer is to make select_idle_sibling() try less hard to find something
> workable and only use obviously idle cpu's in the affine sd, and fall back to
> the full load balance esque search.

So this idea of allowing select_idle_sibling to fail, and falling back
to the slow path, would help me too, I think.

This is also why I was playing with your
don't-affine-recently-balanced-tasks patch[1], which also helps my case
since it prevents want_affine for tasks 3 and 4 (which were recently
moved by an active balance).

(also linked elsewhere in this thread)

> This would make affine misses really expensive, but we can probably negate this
> by tracking per task how often it misses the target, and use that to adjust when
> we do wake_affine in the future for that task. Still experimenting some, I just
> found out a few hours ago I need to rework some of this to fix my cpu imbalance
> problem with cgroups, so once I get something working I'll throw it your way to
> take a look. Thanks,