Re: [PATCH] sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:28:33PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> When a CPU is kicked to do nohz idle balancing, it wakes up to do load balancing
> on itself, followed by load balancing on behalf of idle CPUs. But it may end
> up with load after the load balancing attempt on itself. This aborts nohz
> idle balancing. As a result several idle CPUs are left without tasks till such a
> time that an ILB CPU finds it unfavorable to pull tasks upon itself. This delays
> spreading of load across idle CPUs and worse, clutters only a few CPUs with
> tasks.
> 
> The effect of the above problem was observed on an SMT8 POWER server with 2 levels
> of numa domains. Busy loops equal to number of cores were spawned. Since load balancing
> on fork/exec is discouraged across numa domains, all busy loops would start on one of
> the numa domains. However it was expected that eventually one busy loop would run per
> core across all domains due to nohz idle load balancing. But it was observed that
> it took as long as 10 seconds to spread the load across numa domains.
> 
> Further investigation showed that this was a consequence of the following:
> 
> 1. An ILB CPU was chosen from the first numa domain to trigger nohz idle load balancing
> [Given the experiment, upto 6 CPUs per core could be potentially idle in this domain.]
> 
> 2. However the ILB CPU would call load_balance() on itself before initiating nohz idle
> load balancing.
> 
> 3. Given cores are SMT8, the ILB CPU had enough opportunities to pull tasks from its
> sibling cores to even out load.
> 
> 4. Now that the ILB CPU was no longer idle, it would abort nohz idle load balancing
> 
> As a result the opportunities to spread load across numa domains were lost until such a
> time that the cores within the first numa domain had equal number of tasks among themselves.
> This is a pretty bad scenario, since the cores within the first numa domain would have
> as many as 4 tasks each, while cores in the neighbouring numa domains would all remain idle.
> 
> Fix this, by checking if a CPU was woken up to do nohz idle load balancing, before it does
> load balancing upon itself. This way we allow idle CPUs across the system to do load balancing
> which results in quicker spread of load, instead of performing load balancing within the local
> sched domain hierarchy of the ILB CPU alone under circumstances such as above.

Please teach your favourite text editor to wrap Changelog text at 72
chars (because git show shows the Changelog indented by 1 tabstop).

For vim I can offer:

 autocmd BufNewFile,BufRead *.patch setlocal textwidth=72

> Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
>  kernel/sched/fair.c |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index bcfe320..95b00d5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7660,14 +7660,13 @@ static void run_rebalance_domains(struct softirq_action *h)
>  	enum cpu_idle_type idle = this_rq->idle_balance ?
>  						CPU_IDLE : CPU_NOT_IDLE;
>  
> -	rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * If this cpu has a pending nohz_balance_kick, then do the
>  	 * balancing on behalf of the other idle cpus whose ticks are
>  	 * stopped.
>  	 */
>  	nohz_idle_balance(this_rq, idle);
> +	rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
>  }

Might a comment be called for that explains all this -- albeit a little
less verbose?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/