Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3
From: Aaron Lu
Date: Fri Sep 13 2019 - 09:58:15 EST
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:05:43AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 9/12/19 5:04 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > Well, I have done following tests:
> > 1 Julien's test script: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/834cf45c
> > 2 start two tagged will-it-scale/page_fault1, see how each performs;
> > 3 Aubrey's mysql test: https://github.com/aubreyli/coresched_bench.git
> > They all show your patchset performs equally well...And consider what
> > the patch does, I think they are really doing the same thing in
> > different ways.
> The new feature of my new patches attempt to load balance between cores,
> and remove imbalance of cgroup load on a core that causes forced idle.
> Whereas previous patches attempt for fairness of cgroup between sibling threads,
> so I think the goals are kind of orthogonal and complementary.
> The premise is this, say cgroup1 is occupying 50% of cpu on cpu thread 1
> and 25% of cpu on cpu thread 2, that means we have a 25% cpu imbalance
> and cpu is force idled 25% of the time. So ideally we need to remove
> 12.5% of cgroup 1 load from cpu thread 1 to sibling thread 2, so they
> both run at 37.5% on both thread for cgroup1 load without causing
> any force idled time. Otherwise we will try to remove 25% of cgroup1
> load from cpu thread 1 to another core that has cgroup1 load to match.
> This load balance is done in the regular load balance paths.
> Previously for v3, only sched_core_balance made an attempt to pull a cookie task, and only
> in the idle balance path. So if the cpu is kept busy, the cgroup load imbalance
> between sibling threads could last a long time. And the thread fairness
> patches for v3 don't help to balance load for such cases.
> The new patches take into actual consideration of the amount of load imbalance
> of the same group between sibling threads when selecting task to pull,
> and it also prevent task migration that creates
> more load imbalance. So hopefully this feature will help when we have
> more cores and need load balance across the cores. This tries to help
> even cgroup workload between threads to minimize forced idle time, and also
> even out load across cores.
Will take a look at your new patches, thanks for the explanation.
> In your test, how many cores are on your machine and how many threads did
> each page_fault1 spawn off?
The test VM has 16 cores and 32 threads.
I created 2 tagged cgroups to run page_fault1 and each page_fault1 has
16 processes, like this:
$ ./src/will-it-scale/page_fault1_processes -t 16 -s 60