Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race window.

[Atish Patra]

On 10/31/2017 03:48 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 09:20 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:27:41AM -0500, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > Currently, multiple tasks can wakeup on same cpu from
> > > select_idle_sibiling() path in case they wakeup simulatenously
> > > and last ran on the same llc. This happens because an idle cpu
> > > is not updated until idle task is scheduled out. Any task waking
> > > during that period may potentially select that cpu for a wakeup
> > > candidate.
> > >
> > > Introduce a per cpu variable that is set as soon as a cpu is
> > > selected for wakeup for any task. This prevents from other tasks
> > > to select the same cpu again. Note: This does not close the race
> > > window but minimizes it to accessing the per-cpu variable. If two
> > > wakee tasks access the per cpu variable at the same time, they may
> > > select the same cpu again. But it minimizes the race window
> > > considerably.
> > The very most important question; does it actually help? What
> > benchmarks, give what numbers?
Here are the numbers from one of the OLTP configuration on a 8 socket 
x86 machine
kernel          txn/minute (normalized)    user/sys
baseline      1.0                                          80/5
pcpu            1.021                                      84/5

The throughput gains are not very high and close to run-to-run variation %.
The schedstat data (added for testing in 2/2 patch) indicates the there 
are many instances of the
race conditions that got addressed but may be not enough to trigger a 
significant throughput change.

All other benchmark I tested (TPCC, hackbench, schbench, swingbench) did 
not show any regression.

I will let Joel post numbers from Android benchmarks.
> I played with something ~similar (cmpxchg() idle cpu reservation)
I had an atomic version earlier as well. Peter's suggestion for per cpu 
seems to perform slightly better than atomic.
Thus, this patch has the per cpu version.
>   a
> while back in the context of schbench, and it did help that,
Do you have the schbench configuration somewhere that I can test? I 
tried various configurations but did not
see any improvement or regression.
> but for
> generic fast mover benchmarks, the added overhead had the expected
> effect, it shaved throughput a wee bit (rob Peter, pay Paul, repeat).
which benchmark ? Is it hackbench or something else ?
I have not found any regression yet in my testing. I would be happy to 
test if any other benchmark or different configuration
for hackbench.

Regards,
Atish
> I still have the patch lying about in my rubbish heap, but didn't
> bother to save any of the test results.
>
> 	-Mike