Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:55 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:00 PM Julien Desfossez
> > > <jdesfossez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 24-Apr-2019 09:13:10 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:18 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
> > > > > <vpillai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Second iteration of the core-scheduling feature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This version fixes apparent bugs and performance issues in v1. This
> > > > > > doesn't fully address the issue of core sharing between processes
> > > > > > with different tags. Core sharing still happens 1% to 5% of the time
> > > > > > based on the nature of workload and timing of the runnable processes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes in v2
> > > > > > -------------
> > > > > > - rebased on mainline commit: 6d906f99817951e2257d577656899da02bb33105
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to post v2, based on this version, here is my benchmarks result.
> > > > >
> > > > > Environment setup
> > > > > --------------------------
> > > > > Skylake server, 2 numa nodes, 104 CPUs (HT on)
> > > > > cgroup1 workload, sysbench (CPU intensive non AVX workload)
> > > > > cgroup2 workload, gemmbench (AVX512 workload)
> > > > >
> > > > > Case 1: task number < CPU num
> > > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > 36 sysbench threads in cgroup1
> > > > > 36 gemmbench threads in cgroup2
> > > > >
> > > > > core sched off:
> > > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 4.952, stddev = 0.55342
> > > > > core sched on:
> > > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 3.549, stddev = 0.04449
> > > > >
> > > > > Due to core cookie matching, sysbench tasks won't be affect by AVX512
> > > > > tasks, latency has ~28% improvement!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Case 2: task number > CPU number
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 72 sysbench threads in cgroup1
> > > > > 72 gemmbench threads in cgroup2
> > > > >
> > > > > core sched off:
> > > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 11.914, stddev = 3.259
> > > > > core sched on:
> > > > > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 13.289, stddev = 4.863
> > > > >
> > > > > So not only power, now security and performance is a pair of contradictions.
> > > > > Due to core cookie not matching and forced idle introduced, latency has ~12%
> > > > > regression.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any comments?
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible to post the results with HT off as well ?
> > >
> > > What's the point here to turn HT off? The latency is sensitive to the
> > > relationship
> > > between the task number and CPU number. Usually less CPU number, more run
> > > queue wait time, and worse result.
> >
> > HT-off numbers are mandatory: turning HT off is by far the simplest way
> > to solve the security bugs in these CPUs.
> >
> > Any core-scheduling solution *must* perform better than HT-off for all
> > relevant workloads, otherwise what's the point?
> >
> Got it, I'll measure HT-off cases soon.

Thanks!

	Ingo