Re: Fwd: Intel hybrid CPU scheduler always prefers E cores

[Ramses]

(Sending again since I accidentally sent my last mail as HTML.)

I applied the patch on top of 6.6.2, but unfortunately I see more or less the same behaviour as before, with single-threaded CPU-bound tasks running almost exclusively on E cores.

Ramses


Nov 28, 2023, 18:39 by tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 20:22 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I come across an interesting bug report on Bugzilla [1]. The reporter
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I am running an intel alder lake system (Core i7-1260P), with a mix of P and E cores.
>> > 
>> > Since Linux 6.6, and also on the current 6.7 RC, the scheduler seems to have a strong preference for the E cores, and single threaded workloads are consistently scheduled on one of the E cores.
>> > 
>> > With Linux 6.4 and before, when I ran a single threaded CPU-bound process, it was scheduled on a P core. With 6.5, it seems that the choice of P or E seemed rather random.
>> > 
>> > I tested these by running "stress" with different amounts of threads. With a single thread on Linux 6.6 and 6.7, I always have an E core at 100% and no load on the P cores. Starting from 3 threads I get some load on the P cores as well, but the E cores stay more heavily loaded.
>> > With "taskset" I can force a process to run on a P core, but clearly it's not very practical to have to do CPU scheduling manually.
>> > 
>> > This severely affects single-threaded performance of my CPU since the E cores are considerably slower. Several of my workflows are now a lot slower due to them being single-threaded and heavily CPU-bound and being scheduled on E cores whereas they would run on P cores before.
>> > 
>> > I am not sure what the exact desired behaviour is here, to balance power consumption and performance, but currently my P cores are barely used for single-threaded workloads.
>> > 
>> > Is this intended behaviour or is this indeed a regression? Or is there perhaps any configuration that I should have done from my side? Is there any further info that I can provide to help you figure out what's going on?
>>
>> PM and scheduler people, is this a regression or works as intended?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> [1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218195
>>
>
> I have noticed that the current code sometimes is quite trigger happy
> moving tasks off P-core, whenever there are more than 2 tasks on a core.
> Sometimes, Short running house keeping tasks
> could disturb the running task on P-core as a result.
>
> Can you try the following patch?  On my Alder Lake system, I see as I add single
> threaded tasks, they first run on P-cores, then followed by E-cores with this
> patch on 6.6.
>
> Tim
>
> From 68a15ef01803c252261ebb47d86dfc1f2c68ae1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:58:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Don't force smt balancing when CPU has spare
>  capacity
>
> Currently group_smt_balance is picked whenever there are more
> than two tasks on a core with two SMT.  However, the utilization
> of those tasks may be low and do not warrant a task
> migration to a CPU of lower priority.
>
> Adjust sched group clssification and sibling_imbalance()
> to reflect this consideration.  Use sibling_imbalance() to
> compute imbalance in calculate_imbalance() for the group_smt_balance
> case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ef7490c4b8b4..7dd7c2d2367a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9460,14 +9460,15 @@ group_type group_classify(unsigned int imbalance_pct,
>  if (sgs->group_asym_packing)
>  return group_asym_packing;
>  
> -	if (sgs->group_smt_balance)
> -		return group_smt_balance;
> -
>  if (sgs->group_misfit_task_load)
>  return group_misfit_task;
>  
> -	if (!group_has_capacity(imbalance_pct, sgs))
> -		return group_fully_busy;
> +	if (!group_has_capacity(imbalance_pct, sgs)) {
> +		if (sgs->group_smt_balance)
> +			return group_smt_balance;
> +		else
> +			return group_fully_busy;
> +	}
>  
>  return group_has_spare;
>  }
> @@ -9573,6 +9574,11 @@ static inline long sibling_imbalance(struct lb_env *env,
>  if (env->idle == CPU_NOT_IDLE || !busiest->sum_nr_running)
>  return 0;
>  
> +	/* Do not pull tasks off preferred group with spare capacity */
> +	if (busiest->group_type == group_has_spare &&
> +	    sched_asym_prefer(sds->busiest->asym_prefer_cpu, env->dst_cpu))
> +		return 0;
> +
>  ncores_busiest = sds->busiest->cores;
>  ncores_local = sds->local->cores;
>  
> @@ -10411,13 +10417,6 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
>  return;
>  }
>  
> -	if (busiest->group_type == group_smt_balance) {
> -		/* Reduce number of tasks sharing CPU capacity */
> -		env->migration_type = migrate_task;
> -		env->imbalance = 1;
> -		return;
> -	}
> -
>  if (busiest->group_type == group_imbalanced) {
>  /*
>  * In the group_imb case we cannot rely on group-wide averages
> -- 
> 2.32.0
>