On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:36:21 PM CET Giovanni Gherdovich wrote: > On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 11:12 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
[cut] > > Hello Rafael, Hi Giovanni, First off, many thanks for doing this work, it is very very much appreciated! > your new governor has a neutral impact on performance, as you expected. This > is > a positive result, since the purpose of "teo" is to give improved > predictions on idle times without regressing on the performance side. Right. > There are swings here and there but nothing looks extremely bad. v2 is largely > equivalent to v1 in my tests, except for sockperf and netperf on the > Haswell machine (v2 slightly worse) and tbench on the Skylake machine > (again v2 slightly worse). Thanks for the data. I have some ideas on what may be the difference between the v1 and the v2 on these machines, more about that below. > I've tested your patches applying them on v4.18 (plus the backport > necessary for v2 as Doug helpfully noted), just because it was the latest > release when I started preparing this. > > I've tested it on three machines, with different generations of Intel CPUs: > > * single socket E3-1240 v5 (Skylake 8 cores, which I'll call 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA) > * two sockets E5-2698 v4 (Broadwell 80 cores, 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA from here > onwards) > * two sockets E5-2670 v3 (Haswell 48 cores, 48x-HASWELL-NUMA from here > onwards) > > > BENCHMARKS WITH NEUTRAL RESULTS > =============================== > > These are the workloads where no noticeable difference is measured (on both > v1 and v2, all machines), together with the corresponding MMTests[1] > configuration file name: > > * pgbench read-only on xfs, pgbench read/write on xfs > * global-dhp__db-pgbench-timed-ro-small-xfs > * global-dhp__db-pgbench-timed-rw-small-xfs > * siege > * global-dhp__http-siege > * hackbench, pipetest > * global-dhp__scheduler-unbound > * Linux kernel compilation > * global-dhp__workload_kerndevel-xfs > * NASA Parallel Benchmarks, C-Class (linear algebra; run both with OpenMP > and OpenMPI, over xfs) > * global-dhp__nas-c-class-mpi-full-xfs > * global-dhp__nas-c-class-omp-full > * FIO (Flexible IO) in several configurations > * global-dhp__io-fio-randread-async-randwrite-xfs > * global-dhp__io-fio-randread-async-seqwrite-xfs > * global-dhp__io-fio-seqread-doublemem-32k-4t-xfs > * global-dhp__io-fio-seqread-doublemem-4k-4t-xfs > * netperf on loopback over TCP > * global-dhp__network-netperf-unbound The above is great to know. > BENCHMARKS WITH NON-NEUTRAL RESULTS: OVERVIEW > ============================================= > > These are benchmarks which exhibit a variation in their performance; > you'll see the magnitude of the changes is moderate and it's highly variable > from machine to machine. All percentages refer to the v4.18 baseline. In > more than one case the Haswell machine seems to prefer v1 to v2. > > * xfsrepair > * global-dhp__io-xfsrepair-xfs > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA 2% worse 2% worse > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 1% worse 1% worse > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 1% worse 1% worse > > * sqlite (insert operations on xfs) > * global-dhp__db-sqlite-insert-medium-xfs > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA no change no change > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 2% worse 3% worse > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA no change no change > > * netperf on loopback over UDP > * global-dhp__network-netperf-unbound > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA no change 6% worse > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 1% worse 4% worse > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 3% better 5% worse > > * sockperf on loopback over TCP, mode "under load" > * global-dhp__network-sockperf-unbound > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA 6% worse no change > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 7% better no change > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 3% better 2% worse > > * sockperf on loopback over UDP, mode "throughput" > * global-dhp__network-sockperf-unbound Generally speaking, I'm not worried about single-digit percent differences, because overall they tend to fall into the noise range in the grand picture. > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA 1% worse 1% worse > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 3% better 2% better > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 4% better 12% worse But the 12% difference here is slightly worrisome. > * sockperf on loopback over UDP, mode "under load" > * global-dhp__network-sockperf-unbound > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA 3% worse 1% worse > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 10% better 8% better > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 1% better no change > > * dbench on xfs > * global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-xfs > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA 3% better 4% better > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA no change no change > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 6% worse 16% worse And same here. > * tbench on loopback > * global-dhp__network-tbench > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA 1% worse 10% worse > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 1% worse 1% worse > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 1% worse 2% worse > > * schbench > * global-dhp__workload_schbench > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA 1% better no change > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA 2% worse 1% worse > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA 2% worse 3% worse > > * gitsource on xfs (git unit tests, shell intensive) > * global-dhp__workload_shellscripts-xfs > > teo-v1 teo-v2 > ------------------------------------------------- > 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA no change no change > 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA no change 1% better > 48x-HASWELL-NUMA no change 1% better > > > BENCHMARKS WITH NON-NEUTRAL RESULTS: DETAIL > =========================================== > > Now some more detail. Each benchmark is run in a variety of configurations > (eg. number of threads, number of concurrent connections and so forth) each > of them giving a result. What you see above is the geometric mean of > "sub-results"; below is the detailed view where there was a regression > larger than 5% (either in v1 or v2, on any of the machines). That means > I'll exclude xfsrepar, sqlite, schbench and the git unit tests "gitsource" > that have negligible swings from the baseline. > > In all tables asterisks indicate a statement about statistical > significance: the difference with baseline has a p-value smaller than 0.1 > (small p-values indicate that the difference is real and not just random > noise). > > NETPERF-UDP > =========== > NOTES: Test run in mode "stream" over UDP. The varying parameter is the > message size in bytes. Each measurement is taken 5 times and the > harmonic mean is reported. > MEASURES: Throughput in MBits/second, both on the sender and on the receiver > end. > HIGHER is better > > machine: 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA > 4.18.0 4.18.0 > 4.18.0 > vanilla teo-v1 > teo-v2+backport > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hmean send-64 362.27 ( 0.00%) 362.87 ( 0.16%) > 318.85 * -11.99%* > Hmean send-128 723.17 ( 0.00%) 723.66 ( 0.07%) > 660.96 * -8.60%* > Hmean send-256 1435.24 ( 0.00%) 1427.08 ( -0.57%) > 1346.22 * -6.20%* > Hmean send-1024 5563.78 ( 0.00%) 5529.90 * -0.61%* > 5228.28 * -6.03%* > Hmean send-2048 10935.42 ( 0.00%) 10809.66 * -1.15%* > 10521.14 * -3.79%* > Hmean send-3312 16898.66 ( 0.00%) 16539.89 * -2.12%* > 16240.87 * -3.89%* > Hmean send-4096 19354.33 ( 0.00%) 19185.43 ( -0.87%) > 18600.52 * -3.89%* > Hmean send-8192 32238.80 ( 0.00%) 32275.57 ( 0.11%) > 29850.62 * -7.41%* > Hmean send-16384 48146.75 ( 0.00%) 49297.23 * 2.39%* > 48295.51 ( 0.31%) > Hmean recv-64 362.16 ( 0.00%) 362.87 ( 0.19%) > 318.82 * -11.97%* > Hmean recv-128 723.01 ( 0.00%) 723.66 ( 0.09%) > 660.89 * -8.59%* > Hmean recv-256 1435.06 ( 0.00%) 1426.94 ( -0.57%) > 1346.07 * -6.20%* > Hmean recv-1024 5562.68 ( 0.00%) 5529.90 * -0.59%* > 5228.28 * -6.01%* > Hmean recv-2048 10934.36 ( 0.00%) 10809.66 * -1.14%* > 10519.89 * -3.79%* > Hmean recv-3312 16898.65 ( 0.00%) 16538.21 * -2.13%* > 16240.86 * -3.89%* > Hmean recv-4096 19351.99 ( 0.00%) 19183.17 ( -0.87%) > 18598.33 * -3.89%* > Hmean recv-8192 32238.74 ( 0.00%) 32275.13 ( 0.11%) > 29850.39 * -7.41%* > Hmean recv-16384 48146.59 ( 0.00%) 49296.23 * 2.39%* > 48295.03 ( 0.31%) That is a bit worse than I would like it to be TBH. > SOCKPERF-TCP-UNDER-LOAD > ======================= > NOTES: Test run in mode "under load" over TCP. Parameters are message size > and transmission rate. > MEASURES: Round-trip time in microseconds > LOWER is better > > machine: 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA > 4.18.0 > 4.18.0 4.18.0 > vanilla > teo-v1 teo-v2+backport > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Amean size-14-rate-10000 36.43 ( 0.00%) 36.86 ( > -1.17%) 20.24 ( 44.44%) > Amean size-14-rate-24000 17.78 ( 0.00%) 17.71 ( > 0.36%) 18.54 ( -4.29%) > Amean size-14-rate-50000 20.53 ( 0.00%) 22.29 ( > -8.58%) 16.16 ( 21.30%) > Amean size-100-rate-10000 21.22 ( 0.00%) 23.41 ( > -10.35%) 33.04 ( -55.73%) > Amean size-100-rate-24000 17.81 ( 0.00%) 21.09 ( > -18.40%) 14.39 ( 19.18%) > Amean size-100-rate-50000 12.31 ( 0.00%) 19.65 ( > -59.64%) 15.11 ( -22.77%) > Amean size-300-rate-10000 34.21 ( 0.00%) 35.30 ( > -3.19%) 34.20 ( 0.05%) > Amean size-300-rate-24000 24.52 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( > -6.04%) 27.42 ( -11.81%) > Amean size-300-rate-50000 20.20 ( 0.00%) 20.39 ( > -0.95%) 17.83 ( 11.73%) > Amean size-500-rate-10000 21.56 ( 0.00%) 21.31 ( > 1.15%) 29.32 ( -35.98%) > Amean size-500-rate-24000 30.58 ( 0.00%) 27.41 ( > 10.38%) 27.21 ( 11.03%) > Amean size-500-rate-50000 19.46 ( 0.00%) 22.48 ( > -15.55%) 16.29 ( 16.30%) > Amean size-850-rate-10000 35.89 ( 0.00%) 35.56 ( > 0.91%) 23.84 ( 33.57%) > Amean size-850-rate-24000 29.11 ( 0.00%) 28.18 ( > 3.20%) 17.44 ( 40.08%) > Amean size-850-rate-50000 13.55 ( 0.00%) 18.05 ( > -33.26%) 21.30 ( -57.20%) IMO there is too much variation here to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. > SOCKPERF-UDP-THROUGHPUT > ======================= > NOTES: Test run in mode "throughput" over UDP. The varying parameter is the > message size. > MEASURES: Throughput, in MBits/second > HIGHER is better > > machine: 48x-HASWELL-NUMA > 4.18.0 4.18.0 > 4.18.0 > vanilla teo-v1 > teo-v2+backport > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hmean 14 48.16 ( 0.00%) 50.94 * 5.77%* 42.50 * > -11.77%* > Hmean 100 346.77 ( 0.00%) 358.74 * 3.45%* 303.31 * > -12.53%* > Hmean 300 1018.06 ( 0.00%) 1053.75 * 3.51%* 895.55 * > -12.03%* > Hmean 500 1693.07 ( 0.00%) 1754.62 * 3.64%* 1489.61 * > -12.02%* > Hmean 850 2853.04 ( 0.00%) 2948.73 * 3.35%* 2473.50 * > -13.30%* Well, in this case the consistent improvement in v1 turned into a consistent decline in the v2, and over 10% for that matter. Needs improvement IMO. > DBENCH4 > ======= > NOTES: asyncronous IO; varies the number of clients up to NUMCPUS*8. > MEASURES: latency (millisecs) > LOWER is better > > machine: 48x-HASWELL-NUMA > 4.18.0 4.18.0 > 4.18.0 > vanilla teo-v1 > teo-v2+backport > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Amean 1 37.15 ( 0.00%) 50.10 ( -34.86%) 39.02 ( > -5.03%) > Amean 2 43.75 ( 0.00%) 45.50 ( -4.01%) 44.36 ( > -1.39%) > Amean 4 54.42 ( 0.00%) 58.85 ( -8.15%) 58.17 ( > -6.89%) > Amean 8 75.72 ( 0.00%) 74.25 ( 1.94%) 82.76 ( > -9.30%) > Amean 16 116.56 ( 0.00%) 119.88 ( -2.85%) 164.14 ( > -40.82%) > Amean 32 570.02 ( 0.00%) 561.92 ( 1.42%) 681.94 ( > -19.63%) > Amean 64 3185.20 ( 0.00%) 3291.80 ( -3.35%) 4337.43 ( > -36.17%) This one too. > TBENCH4 > ======= > NOTES: networking counterpart of dbench. Varies the number of clients up to > NUMCPUS*4 > MEASURES: Throughput, MB/sec > HIGHER is better > > machine: 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA > 4.18.0 4.18.0 > 4.18.0 > vanilla teo > teo-v2+backport > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hmean mb/sec-1 620.52 ( 0.00%) 613.98 * -1.05%* 502.47 > * -19.03%* > Hmean mb/sec-2 1179.05 ( 0.00%) 1112.84 * -5.62%* 820.57 > * -30.40%* > Hmean mb/sec-4 2072.29 ( 0.00%) 2040.55 * -1.53%* 2036.11 > * -1.75%* > Hmean mb/sec-8 4238.96 ( 0.00%) 4205.01 * -0.80%* 4124.59 > * -2.70%* > Hmean mb/sec-16 3515.96 ( 0.00%) 3536.23 * 0.58%* 3500.02 > * -0.45%* > Hmean mb/sec-32 3452.92 ( 0.00%) 3448.94 * -0.12%* 3428.08 > * -0.72%* > And same here. > [1] https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests > > > Happy to answer any questions on the benchmarks or the methods used to > collect/report data. > > Something I'd like to do now is verify that "teo"'s predictions are better > than "menu"'s; I'll probably use systemtap to make some histograms of idle > times versus what idle state was chosen -- that'd be enough to compare the > two. You can use the cpu_idle trace point to correlate the selected state index with the observed idle duration (that's what Doug did IIUC). Then, if the observed idle duration is between the target residency of the selected state and the target residency of the next one, the selected state is adequate and that's what we care about really. If the observed idle duration is below the target residency of the selected state, the selected state is too deep and it if is above (or equal to) the target residency of the next state, it is too shallow. > After that it would be nice to somehow know where timers came from; i.e. if > I see that residences in a given state are consistently shorter than > they're supposed to be, it would be interesting to see who set the timer > that causes the wakeup. But... I'm not sure to know how to do that :) Do > you have a strategy to track down the origin of timers/interrupts? Is there > any script you're using to evaluate teo that you can share? I need to think about that TBH. The information that we can get readily should give use quite a good idea of what happens on average, though, so let's first do that and then try to dig deeper if need be. I think that the difference between the v1 and v2 of the TEO governor comes mostly from the way in which they handle patterns of "early" wakeups. The method used in v1 is very crude (and arguably invalid in general) and it will cause shallow states to be selected more often, while the v2 tries to be more "intelligent", but it may be overly conservative with that. I'm working on a v3 that will try to address the above ATM, but I'd like to run it on my systems first (I'm going back home from a conference right now). Cheers, Rafael
