Re: EEVDF and NUMA balancing

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 02:01:26PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 10:25:08PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > > Is it expected that the commit e8f331bcc270 should have an impact on the
> > > > > > frequency of NUMA balancing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Definitely not expected. The only effect of that commit was supposed to
> > > > > be the runqueue order of tasks. I'll go stare at it in the morning --
> > > > > definitely too late for critical thinking atm.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it's just randomly making a bad situation worse rather than directly
> > > > introduing a problem.  There is a high standard deviatind in the
> > > > performance.  Here are some results with hyperfine.  The general trends
> > > > are reproducible.
> > >
> > > OK,. I'm still busy trying to bring a 4 socket machine up-to-date...
> > > gawd I hate the boot times on those machines :/
> > >
> > > But yeah, I was thinking similar things, I really can't spot an obvious
> > > fail in that commit.
> > >
> > > I'll go have a poke once the darn machine is willing to submit :-)
> >
> > I tried a two-socket machine, but in 50 runs the problem doesn't show up.
> >
> > The commit e8f331bcc270 starts with
> >
> > -       if (sched_feat(PLACE_LAG) && cfs_rq->nr_running > 1) {
> > +       if (sched_feat(PLACE_LAG) && cfs_rq->nr_running) {
> >
> > This seemed like a big change - cfs_rq->nr_running > 1 should be rarely
> > true in ua, while cfs_rq->nr_running should always be true.  Adding back
> > the > 1 and simply replacing the test by 0 both had no effect, though.
>
> BTW., in terms of statistical reliability, one of the biggest ...
> stochastic elements of scheduler balancing is wakeup-preemption - which
> you can turn off via:
>
>    echo NO_WAKEUP_PREEMPTION > /debug/sched/features
>
> or:
>
>    echo NO_WAKEUP_PREEMPTION > /sys/kernel/debug/sched/features
>
> If you can measure a performance regression with WAKEUP_PREEMPTION turned
> off in *both* kernels, there's likely a material change (regression) in the
> quality of NUMA load-balancing.

This is the one that is the case.  In 76cae9dbe185, which is the parent of
e8f331bcc270, there are some runtimes that are a bit slower than with
WAKEUP_PREEMPTION enabled, but e8f331bcc270 now has a lot more larger
numbers.

julia

::::::::::::::
ua.C.x_yeti-4_g76cae9dbe185_performance.json
::::::::::::::
{
  "results": [
    {
      "command": "./ua.C.x",
      "mean": 31.74652352868501,
      "stddev": 7.549670079336034,
      "median": 30.825414389609996,
      "user": 4026.9165747550005,
      "system": 10.66025179,
      "min": 21.93520805911,
      "max": 60.24540388411,
      "times": [
        29.249717538109998,
        25.16879339411,
        27.684410376109998,
        25.03525483911,
        28.33494802611,
        35.398653784109996,
        31.886805430109998,
        33.34682179411,
        35.09637591511,
        28.834901557109998,
        37.71707762411,
        50.09627815011,
        29.848774250109997,
        33.66924291011,
        25.62988106911,
        21.93520805911,
        37.52640704311,
        26.35386307811,
        23.05612102511,
        25.65851957311,
        33.62976770911,
        22.55545402511,
        35.509719604109996,
        47.88084531411,
        27.17976105411,
        34.56864677911,
        34.40073639211,
        35.77985792611,
        31.57792414811,
        60.24540388411,
        35.10386024211,
        32.36256473411,
        31.019663444109998,
        25.05048613411,
        30.631165335109998,
        25.21739748711,
        28.57051109611,
        29.122454695109997,
        31.79110048411,
        26.13556522311
      ]
    }
  ]
}
::::::::::::::
ua.C.x_yeti-4_ge8f331bcc270_performance.json
::::::::::::::
{
  "results": [
    {
      "command": "./ua.C.x",
      "mean": 45.55904025022,
      "stddev": 24.917491037841696,
      "median": 34.83258273512,
      "user": 5760.045859355001,
      "system": 10.244032225000002,
      "min": 21.96719301362,
      "max": 105.35666167362,
      "times": [
        80.22088338362,
        34.76734203462,
        32.01118466362,
        105.35666167362,
        28.23154239862,
        39.79766051762,
        26.89012012362,
        21.96719301362,
        25.05284109962,
        62.19280101062,
        84.22492245362,
        78.83791121262,
        25.67714166762,
        76.34033861162,
        27.57704435562,
        27.83207362162,
        30.93298156162,
        31.29140204262,
        38.02797884462,
        23.80228286862,
        91.19093656262,
        41.32158529962,
        36.27444925062,
        28.47759006162,
        36.42187360462,
        26.13298492862,
        32.64434456262,
        25.03750352662,
        42.02328407262,
        25.30765174962,
        37.82597961162,
        34.89782343562,
        73.64093796562,
        34.05860726262,
        78.25896451662,
        27.36415754262,
        35.27277725262,
        27.48229668562,
        85.76905357362,
        101.92650138361999
      ]
    }
  ]
}









>
> If it goes away or changes dramatically with WAKEUP_PREEMPTION off, then
> I'd pin this effect to EEVDF causing timing changes that are subtly
> shifting NUMA & SMP balancing decisions past some critical threshold that
> is detrimental to this particular workload.
>
> ( Obviously both are regressions we care about - but doing this test would
>   help categorize the nature of the regression. )
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo
>