On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 16:32 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 10:34 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 16:24 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Jason Low <jason.l...@hp.com> wrote:
> > > > Based on perf profiles, the update_cfs_rq_blocked_load function
> > > > constantly
> > > > shows up as taking up a noticeable % of system run time. This is
> > > > especially
> > > > apparent on larger numa systems.
> > > >
> > > > Much of the contention is in __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib when we're
> > > > updating the tg load contribution stats. However, it was noticed that
> > > > the
> > > > values often don't get modified by much. In fact, much of the time, they
> > > > don't get modified at all. However, the update can always get attempted
> > > > due
> > > > to force_update.
> > > >
> > > > In this patch, we remove the force_update in only the
> > > > __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib. Thus the tg load contrib stats now get
> > > > modified only if the delta is large enough (in the current code, they
> > > > get
> > > > updated when the delta is larger than 12.5%). This is a way to
> > > > rate-limit
> > > > the updates while largely keeping the values accurate.
> > > >
> > > > When testing this change with AIM7 workloads, we found that it was able
> > > > to
> > > > reduce the overhead of the function by up to a factor of 20x.
> > >
> > > Looks reasonable.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Yuyang Du <yuyang...@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hp.com>
> > > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de>
> > > > Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikb...@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <as...@hp.com>
> > > > Cc: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vi...@hp.com>
> > > > Cc: Scott J Norton <scott.nor...@hp.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.l...@hp.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 ++++------
> > > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > index fea7d33..7a6e18b 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > @@ -2352,8 +2352,7 @@ static inline u64
> > > > __synchronize_entity_decay(struct sched_entity *se)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > > > -static inline void __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq
> > > > *cfs_rq,
> > > > - int force_update)
> > > > +static inline void __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq
> > > > *cfs_rq)
> > > > {
> > > > struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq->tg;
> > > > long tg_contrib;
> > > > @@ -2361,7 +2360,7 @@ static inline void
> > > > __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> > > > tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg +
> > > > cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg;
> > > > tg_contrib -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
> > > >
> > > > - if (force_update || abs(tg_contrib) > cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib /
> > > > 8) {
> > >
> > > Another option with slightly higher accuracy would be to increase the
> > > sensitivity here when force_update == 1.
> > >
> > > E.g.:
> > > abs(tg_contrib) > cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib / (8 * (1 + force_update)))
> > > { ...
> > >
> > > Alternatively we could bound total inaccuracy:
> > > int divisor = force_update ? NR_CPUS : 8;
> > > if (abs(tg_contrib) > cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib / divisor) { ...
> > >
> > >
> > > [ And probably rename force_update to want_update ]
> >
> > Out of the 2 additional options, I think the first one is better. The
> > other option of using NR_CPUS looks like we're increasing the update
> > rate as the system gets larger, and its the larger systems that are
> > typically more affected by the contention.
>
> Probably num_present_cpus() will be better than NR_CPUS, which can
> be much larger than the actual cpus present.
Yeah, num_present_cpus(), though the same issue would still be there.
> >
> > Do you prefer either of the 2 other options over this v2 patch? If so, I
> > can test and send out a new patch, otherwise, I'll keep this current v2
> > patch.
>
> If there are multiple non-forced updates, option 1's error seems to
> accumulate and non-bounded as we do not actually update?
> Is this a concern?
It should be fine. Once the delta is large enough, we will end up doing
the update anyway.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
