Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Preserve PLACE_DEADLINE_INITIAL deadline

[Daniel Jordan]

Hi Prateek,

On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 11:26:07AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
> 
> On 10/4/2023 6:47 AM, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> > An entity is supposed to get an earlier deadline with
> > PLACE_DEADLINE_INITIAL when it's forked, but the deadline gets
> > overwritten soon after in enqueue_entity() the first time a forked
> > entity is woken so that PLACE_DEADLINE_INITIAL is effectively a no-op.
> > 
> > Placing in task_fork_fair() seems unnecessary since none of the values
> > that get set (slice, vruntime, deadline) are used before they're set
> > again at enqueue time, so get rid of that and just pass ENQUEUE_INITIAL
> > to enqueue_entity() via wake_up_new_task().
> > 
> > Fixes: e8f331bcc270 ("sched/smp: Use lag to simplify cross-runqueue placement")
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I got a chance to this this on a 3rd Generation EPYC system. I don't
> see anything out of the ordinary except for a small regression on
> hackbench. I'll leave the full result below.

Thanks for testing!

> o System details
> 
> - 3rd Generation EPYC System
> - 2 sockets each with 64C/128T
> - NPS1 (Each socket is a NUMA node)
> - Boost enabled, C2 Disabled (POLL and MWAIT based C1 remained enabled)
> 
> 
> o Kernel Details
> 
> - tip:	tip:sched/core at commit d4d6596b4386 ("sched/headers: Remove
> 	duplicate header inclusions")
> 
> - place-deadline-fix: tip + this patch
> 
> 
> o Benchmark Results
> 
> ==================================================================
> Test          : hackbench
> Units         : Normalized time in seconds
> Interpretation: Lower is better
> Statistic     : AMean
> ==================================================================
> Case:           tip[pct imp](CV)    place-deadline-fix[pct imp](CV)
>  1-groups     1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.58)     1.04 [ -3.63]( 3.14)
>  2-groups     1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.87)     1.03 [ -2.98]( 1.85)
>  4-groups     1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.63)     1.02 [ -2.35]( 1.59)
>  8-groups     1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.38)     1.03 [ -2.92]( 1.20)
> 16-groups     1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.67)     1.02 [ -1.61]( 2.08)

Huh, numbers do seem a bit outside the noise.  Doesn't hackbench only
fork at the beginning?  I glanced at perf messaging source just now, but
not sure if you use that version.  Anyway, I wouldn't expect this patch
to have much of an effect in that case.