Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] Powerpc/smp: Create coregroup domain

From: Srikar Dronamraju
Date: Mon Aug 03 2020 - 02:01:32 EST

> > Also in the current P9 itself, two neighbouring core-pairs form a quad.
> > Cache latency within a quad is better than a latency to a distant core-pair.
> > Cache latency within a core pair is way better than latency within a quad.
> > So if we have only 4 threads running on a DIE all of them accessing the same
> > cache-lines, then we could probably benefit if all the tasks were to run
> > within the quad aka MC/Coregroup.
> >
> Did you test this? WRT load balance we do try to balance "load" over the
> different domain spans, so if you represent quads as their own MC domain,
> you would AFAICT end up spreading tasks over the quads (rather than packing
> them) when balancing at e.g. DIE level. The desired behaviour might be
> hackable with some more ASYM_PACKING, but I'm not sure I should be
> suggesting that :-)

Agree, load balance will try to spread the load across the quads. In my hack,
I was explicitly marking QUAD domains as !SD_PREFER_SIBLING + relaxing few
load spreading rules when SD_PREFER_SIBLING was not set. And this was on a
slightly older kernel (without recent Vincent's load balance overhaul).

> > I have found some benchmarks which are latency sensitive to benefit by
> > having a grouping a quad level (using kernel hacks and not backed by
> > firmware changes). Gautham also found similar results in his experiments
> > but he only used binding within the stock kernel.
> >
> IIUC you reflect this "fabric quirk" (i.e. coregroups) using this DT
> binding thing.
> That's also where things get interesting (for me) because I experienced
> something similar on another arm64 platform (ThunderX1). This was more
> about cache bandwidth than cache latency, but IMO it's in the same bag of
> fabric quirks. I blabbered a bit about this at last LPC [1], but kind of
> gave up on it given the TX1 was the only (arm64) platform where I could get
> both significant and reproducible results.
> Now, if you folks are seeing this on completely different hardware and have
> "real" workloads that truly benefit from this kind of domain partitioning,
> this might be another incentive to try and sort of generalize this. That's
> outside the scope of your series, but your findings give me some hope!
> I think what I had in mind back then was that if enough folks cared about
> it, we might get some bits added to the ACPI spec; something along the
> lines of proximity domains for the caches described in PPTT, IOW a cache
> distance matrix. I don't really know what it'll take to get there, but I
> figured I'd dump this in case someone's listening :-)

Very interesting.

> > I am not setting SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES in MC/Coregroup sd_flags as in MC
> > domain need not be LLC domain for Power.
> From what I understood your MC domain does seem to map to LLC; but in any
> case, shouldn't you set that flag at least for BIGCORE (i.e. L2)? AIUI with
> your changes your sd_llc is gonna be SMT, and that's not going to be a very
> big mask. IMO you do want to correctly reflect your LLC situation via this
> flag to make cpus_share_cache() work properly.

I detect if the LLC is shared at BIGCORE, and if they are shared at BIGCORE,
then I dynamically rename the DOMAIN as CACHE and enable
SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES in that domain.

> [1]:

Thanks for the pointer.

Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju