Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc/smp: Add SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag to MC sched-domain

[Gautham R Shenoy]

Hello Mel,

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:48:19AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:06:19AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > On 12/04/21 10:37, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:54:36AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > >> * Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2021-04-02 11:07:54]:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > To remedy this, this patch proposes that the LLC be moved to the MC
> > >> > level which is a group of cores in one half of the chip.
> > >> >
> > >> >       SMT (SMT4) --> MC (Hemisphere)[LLC] --> DIE
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I think marking Hemisphere as a LLC in a P10 scenario is a good idea.
> > >>
> > >> > While there is no cache being shared at this level, this is still the
> > >> > level where some amount of cache-snooping takes place and it is
> > >> > relatively faster to access the data from the caches of the cores
> > >> > within this domain. With this change, we no longer see regressions on
> > >> > P10 for applications which require single threaded performance.
> > >>
> > >> Peter, Valentin, Vincent, Mel, etal
> > >>
> > >> On architectures where we have multiple levels of cache access latencies
> > >> within a DIE, (For example: one within the current LLC or SMT core and the
> > >> other at MC or Hemisphere, and finally across hemispheres), do you have any
> > >> suggestions on how we could handle the same in the core scheduler?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Minimally I think it would be worth detecting when there are multiple
> > > LLCs per node and detecting that in generic code as a static branch. In
> > > select_idle_cpu, consider taking two passes -- first on the LLC domain
> > > and if no idle CPU is found then taking a second pass if the search depth
> > > allows within the node with the LLC CPUs masked out.
> > 
> > I think that's actually a decent approach. Tying SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES to
> > something other than pure cache topology in a generic manner is tough (as
> > it relies on murky, ill-defined hardware fabric properties).
> > 
> 
> Agreed. The LLC->node scan idea has been on my TODO list to try for
> a while.

If you have any patches for these, I will be happy to test them on
POWER10. Though, on POWER10, there will be an additional sd between
the LLC and the DIE domain. 




> 
> > Last I tried thinking about that, I stopped at having a core-to-core
> > latency matrix, building domains off of that, and having some knob
> > specifying the highest distance value below which we'd set
> > SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES. There's a few things I 'hate' about that; for one
> > it makes cpus_share_cache() somewhat questionable.
> > 
> 
> And I thought about something like this too but worried it might get
> complex, particularly on chiplets where we do not necessarily have
> hardware info on latency depending on how it's wired up. It also might
> lead to excessive cpumask manipulation in a fast path if we have to
> traverse multiple distances with search cost exceeding gains from latency
> reduction. Hence -- keeping it simple with two level only, LLC then node
> within the allowed search depth and see what that gets us. It might be
> "good enough" in most cases and would be a basis for comparison against
> complex approaches.


> 
> At minimum, I expect IBM can evaluate the POWER10 aspect and I can run
> an evaluation on Zen generations.


> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs