From patchwork Wed Aug 9 22:12:17 2023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: David Vernet X-Patchwork-Id: 133611 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ouuuleilei@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a59:b824:0:b0:3f2:4152:657d with SMTP id z4csp61707vqi; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IELskBcpbbPM+oU61x8K9lty43RqlWpcsYdEwiDxiiLyb7MtG23+XaH+NGGEWhlAc3MpFWY X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:6a27:b0:125:3445:8af0 with SMTP id p39-20020a056a206a2700b0012534458af0mr363899pzk.7.1691622495299; Wed, 09 Aug 2023 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1691622495; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=iAiosKY6xhcn6avP0yusDNUae1HzOE4mJWiZuEZxsp2fitL+O3cNlN0l0Lbd0v1BQU pUynYwUTd4qq5h0bLxmwjF+9XGSLgqolk7mMxolPq4OrzzWw00YRTB4q4hDRYsLcvKsT j0lrYg8g9GOqEQoGA04CGocm9DfXM+OkpF+a3PAAei5q4uNNK2n9MQ2J4Zp/7P/Brt3g n5MzgOUAQ7C8YEhrrSYWE0MNL4d486Wz1BToL7XSGZiszp3wrwrUv1L1ucHMo5DB3Zeu FB/gDY8821uZQrfOLhPWUGxYlEuRJlmFtNP71pIpLsaQFUEAf8g19hz530t37FcUeU8b 1sVg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from; bh=KBBPZZOZWTxF1BTRc530m89uHuzMssFY5s2Pns8fo4I=; fh=20RY08rsve2lwti6V2FQSjrHvxbvm4llznoKqUOZSeY=; b=PHCKFJohp+diyJvyr8wbJkhr0JFW6zyhy9dlAfkiiQYh4Q11kONVo3/Oicj9SaWdUZ oZk8UYl4iZgva10kkhwwDS2mHoORBhB3R4Ng2vIpaM92LaRIsXNGCczV6I3/M1H6cIum 4n+TMLdQWssiTpEhObVwn0TBP5mLm8tAGJh8aMjTILHutFlLZH3C+8dCdgqj/rS2xKIX jKMbPgwYQ23XlMrhm095QgRlaXUYOp2VJt13Pt5x7UbOiMIi4mRHVKadmDbf7lY18+Ao waI94nOQW/8ca8YqWExgL7Zv+FOCJoDPG/q3Ze86Euy+HbKz2nTJe5uMY2/tZvRDDm3w 2q3A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a21-20020a63e855000000b0054fdb18c877si217623pgk.607.2023.08.09.16.08.00; Wed, 09 Aug 2023 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231612AbjHIWNO (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:13:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41032 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232797AbjHIWNJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:13:09 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f177.google.com (mail-qk1-f177.google.com [209.85.222.177]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 637EF2136 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-f177.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-76d1c58ace6so68124385a.1 for ; Wed, 09 Aug 2023 15:12:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1691619176; x=1692223976; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KBBPZZOZWTxF1BTRc530m89uHuzMssFY5s2Pns8fo4I=; b=BvDe6p1NCWdtfM3RyiKegpLp4GTD3xmGNB3p1hTTeeNBeXbJdIvx/f8MYTDQ4cfuGr zO4ireczhqUnv7/2XyDeOBaIeMl4dZhih+n7oFsJx7vIi1Qa4e5Hzr4+EaWSjEQUdaXM CfgGv++8aCIyaXre+10KKVnvKQV7+cXYyjoK3M9aEwcyNl2t3zIDdh2dJzKImtfm4ywT X8hXrgyzzklav98XB5oeTOaodsADqKIhh55p+0d514ILYDBW8+pEBWjFTs+0YdZ71ExM dNYr2hu6Hjx6tO7gke9hPUb7Gy1naWuol6tTnX1XNaC9umVjFYHWEahACK3bpzPuzZWA 9qIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxs5JaeDKmNWR/M5zUmQOuqClGuHoXBMGeSYC3GZtWRP/w1UYTj SuzfjbOMDlEwopvMDAslSmPZhFQrApuKTpUt X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1746:b0:402:3dbf:85fb with SMTP id l6-20020a05622a174600b004023dbf85fbmr323012qtk.33.1691619175810; Wed, 09 Aug 2023 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:400::5:ed08]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g12-20020a05620a108c00b007339c5114a9sm17702qkk.103.2023.08.09.15.12.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Aug 2023 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) From: David Vernet To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, tj@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, gautham.shenoy@amd.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com, aaron.lu@intel.com, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: [PATCH v3 6/7] sched: Implement shared runqueue in CFS Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:12:17 -0500 Message-ID: <20230809221218.163894-7-void@manifault.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.41.0 In-Reply-To: <20230809221218.163894-1-void@manifault.com> References: <20230809221218.163894-1-void@manifault.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: 1773794750085169834 X-GMAIL-MSGID: 1773794750085169834 Overview ======== The scheduler must constantly strike a balance between work conservation, and avoiding costly migrations which harm performance due to e.g. decreased cache locality. The matter is further complicated by the topology of the system. Migrating a task between cores on the same LLC may be more optimal than keeping a task local to the CPU, whereas migrating a task between LLCs or NUMA nodes may tip the balance in the other direction. With that in mind, while CFS is by and large mostly a work conserving scheduler, there are certain instances where the scheduler will choose to keep a task local to a CPU, when it would have been more optimal to migrate it to an idle core. An example of such a workload is the HHVM / web workload at Meta. HHVM is a VM that JITs Hack and PHP code in service of web requests. Like other JIT / compilation workloads, it tends to be heavily CPU bound, and exhibit generally poor cache locality. To try and address this, we set several debugfs (/sys/kernel/debug/sched) knobs on our HHVM workloads: - migration_cost_ns -> 0 - latency_ns -> 20000000 - min_granularity_ns -> 10000000 - wakeup_granularity_ns -> 12000000 These knobs are intended both to encourage the scheduler to be as work conserving as possible (migration_cost_ns -> 0), and also to keep tasks running for relatively long time slices so as to avoid the overhead of context switching (the other knobs). Collectively, these knobs provide a substantial performance win; resulting in roughly a 20% improvement in throughput. Worth noting, however, is that this improvement is _not_ at full machine saturation. That said, even with these knobs, we noticed that CPUs were still going idle even when the host was overcommitted. In response, we wrote the "shared runqueue" (SHARED_RUNQ) feature proposed in this patch set. The idea behind SHARED_RUNQ is simple: it enables the scheduler to be more aggressively work conserving by placing a waking task into a sharded per-LLC FIFO queue that can be pulled from by another core in the LLC FIFO queue which can then be pulled from before it goes idle. With this simple change, we were able to achieve a 1 - 1.6% improvement in throughput, as well as a small, consistent improvement in p95 and p99 latencies, in HHVM. These performance improvements were in addition to the wins from the debugfs knobs mentioned above, and to other benchmarks outlined below in the Results section. Design ====== Note that the design described here reflects sharding, which will be added in a subsequent patch. The design is described that way in this commit summary as the benchmarks described in the results section below all include sharded SHARED_RUNQ. The patches are not combined into one to ease the burden of review. The design of SHARED_RUNQ is quite simple. A shared_runq is simply a list of struct shared_runq_shard objects, which itself is simply a struct list_head of tasks, and a spinlock: struct shared_runq_shard { struct list_head list; raw_spinlock_t lock; } ____cacheline_aligned; struct shared_runq { u32 num_shards; struct shared_runq_shard shards[]; } ____cacheline_aligned; We create a struct shared_runq per LLC, ensuring they're in their own cachelines to avoid false sharing between CPUs on different LLCs, and we create a number of struct shared_runq_shard objects that are housed there. When a task first wakes up, it enqueues itself in the shared_runq_shard of its current LLC at the end of enqueue_task_fair(). Enqueues only happen if the task was not manually migrated to the current core by select_task_rq(), and is not pinned to a specific CPU. A core will pull a task from the shards in its LLC's shared_runq at the beginning of newidle_balance(). Difference between SHARED_RUNQ and SIS_NODE =========================================== In [0] Peter proposed a patch that addresses Tejun's observations that when workqueues are targeted towards a specific LLC on his Zen2 machine with small CCXs, that there would be significant idle time due to select_idle_sibling() not considering anything outside of the current LLC. This patch (SIS_NODE) is essentially the complement to the proposal here. SID_NODE causes waking tasks to look for idle cores in neighboring LLCs on the same die, whereas SHARED_RUNQ causes cores about to go idle to look for enqueued tasks. That said, in its current form, the two features at are a different scope as SIS_NODE searches for idle cores between LLCs, while SHARED_RUNQ enqueues tasks within a single LLC. The patch was since removed in [1], and we compared the results to shared_Runq (previously called "swqueue") in [2]. SIS_NODE did not outperform SHARED_RUNQ on any of the benchmarks, so we elect to not compare against it again for this v2 patch set. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230530113249.GA156198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/ [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230605175636.GA4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230613052004.2836135-1-void@manifault.com/ Worth noting as well is that pointed out in [3] that the logic behind including SIS_NODE in the first place should apply to SHARED_RUNQ (meaning that e.g. very small Zen2 CPUs with only 3/4 cores per LLC should benefit from having a single shared_runq stretch across multiple LLCs). I drafted a patch that implements this by having a minimum LLC size for creating a shard, and stretches a shared_runq across multiple LLCs if they're smaller than that size, and sent it to Tejun to test on his Zen2. Tejun reported back that SIS_NODE did not seem to make a difference: [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230711114207.GK3062772@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/ o____________o__________o | mean | Variance | o------------o----------o Vanilla: | 108.84s | 0.0057 | NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 108.82s | 0.119s | SHARED_RUNQ: | 108.17s | 0.038s | SHARED_RUNQ w/ SIS_NODE: | 108.87s | 0.111s | o------------o----------o I similarly tried running kcompile on SHARED_RUNQ with SIS_NODE on my 7950X Zen3, but didn't see any gain relative to plain SHARED_RUNQ (though a gain was observed relative to NO_SHARED_RUNQ, as described below). Results ======= Note that the motivation for the shared runqueue feature was originally arrived at using experiments in the sched_ext framework that's currently being proposed upstream. The ~1 - 1.6% improvement in HHVM throughput is similarly visible using work-conserving sched_ext schedulers (even very simple ones like global FIFO). In both single and multi socket / CCX hosts, this can measurably improve performance. In addition to the performance gains observed on our internal web workloads, we also observed an improvement in common workloads such as kernel compile and hackbench, when running shared runqueue. On the other hand, some workloads suffer from SHARED_RUNQ. Workloads that hammer the runqueue hard, such as netperf UDP_RR, or schbench -L -m 52 -p 512 -r 10 -t 1. This can be mitigated somewhat by sharding the shared datastructures within a CCX, but it doesn't seem to eliminate all contention in every scenario. On the positive side, it seems that sharding does not materially harm the benchmarks run for this patch series; and in fact seems to improve some workloads such as kernel compile. Note that for the kernel compile workloads below, the compilation was done by running make -j$(nproc) built-in.a on several different types of hosts configured with make allyesconfig on commit a27648c74210 ("afs: Fix setting of mtime when creating a file/dir/symlink") on Linus' tree (boost and turbo were disabled on all of these hosts when the experiments were performed). Finally, note that these results were from the patch set built off of commit ebb83d84e49b ("sched/core: Avoid multiple calling update_rq_clock() in __cfsb_csd_unthrottle()") on the sched/core branch of tip.git for easy comparison with the v2 patch set results. The patches in their final form from this set were rebased onto commit 88c56cfeaec4 ("sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use"). === Single-socket | 16 core / 32 thread | 2-CCX | AMD 7950X Zen4 === CPU max MHz: 5879.8818 CPU min MHz: 3000.0000 Command: make -j$(nproc) built-in.a o____________o__________o | mean | Variance | o------------o----------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 581.95s | 2.639s | SHARED_RUNQ: | 577.02s | 0.084s | o------------o----------o Takeaway: SHARED_RUNQ results in a statistically significant ~.85% improvement over NO_SHARED_RUNQ. This suggests that enqueuing tasks in the shared runqueue on every enqueue improves work conservation, and thanks to sharding, does not result in contention. Command: hackbench --loops 10000 o____________o__________o | mean | Variance | o------------o----------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 2.2492s | .00001s | SHARED_RUNQ: | 2.0217s | .00065s | o------------o----------o Takeaway: SHARED_RUNQ in both forms performs exceptionally well compared to NO_SHARED_RUNQ here, beating it by over 10%. This was a surprising result given that it seems advantageous to err on the side of avoiding migration in hackbench given that tasks are short lived in sending only 10k bytes worth of messages, but the results of the benchmark would seem to suggest that minimizing runqueue delays is preferable. Command: for i in `seq 128`; do netperf -6 -t UDP_RR -c -C -l $runtime & done o_______________________o | Throughput | Variance | o-----------------------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 25037.45 | 2243.44 | SHARED_RUNQ: | 24952.50 | 1268.06 | o-----------------------o Takeaway: No statistical significance, though it is worth noting that there is no regression for shared runqueue on the 7950X, while there is a small regression on the Skylake and Milan hosts for SHARED_RUNQ as described below. === Single-socket | 18 core / 36 thread | 1-CCX | Intel Skylake === CPU max MHz: 1601.0000 CPU min MHz: 800.0000 Command: make -j$(nproc) built-in.a o____________o__________o | mean | Variance | o------------o----------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 1517.44s | 2.8322s | SHARED_RUNQ: | 1516.51s | 2.9450s | o------------o----------o Takeaway: There's on statistically significant gain here. I observed what I claimed was a .23% win in v2, but it appears that this is not actually statistically significant. Command: hackbench --loops 10000 o____________o__________o | mean | Variance | o------------o----------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 5.3370s | .0012s | SHARED_RUNQ: | 5.2668s | .0033s | o------------o----------o Takeaway: SHARED_RUNQ results in a ~1.3% improvement over NO_SHARED_RUNQ. Also statistically significant, but smaller than the 10+% improvement observed on the 7950X. Command: netperf -n $(nproc) -l 60 -t TCP_RR for i in `seq 128`; do netperf -6 -t UDP_RR -c -C -l $runtime & done o_______________________o | Throughput | Variance | o-----------------------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 15699.32 | 377.01 | SHARED_RUNQ: | 14966.42 | 714.13 | o-----------------------o Takeaway: NO_SHARED_RUNQ beats SHARED_RUNQ by ~4.6%. This result makes sense -- the workload is very heavy on the runqueue, so enqueuing tasks in the shared runqueue in __enqueue_entity() would intuitively result in increased contention on the shard lock. === Single-socket | 72-core | 6-CCX | AMD Milan Zen3 === CPU max MHz: 700.0000 CPU min MHz: 700.0000 Command: make -j$(nproc) built-in.a o____________o__________o | mean | Variance | o------------o----------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 1568.55s | 0.1568s | SHARED_RUNQ: | 1568.26s | 1.2168s | o------------o----------o Takeaway: No statistically significant difference here. It might be worth experimenting with work stealing in a follow-on patch set. Command: hackbench --loops 10000 o____________o__________o | mean | Variance | o------------o----------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 5.2716s | .00143s | SHARED_RUNQ: | 5.1716s | .00289s | o------------o----------o Takeaway: SHARED_RUNQ again wins, by about 2%. Command: netperf -n $(nproc) -l 60 -t TCP_RR for i in `seq 128`; do netperf -6 -t UDP_RR -c -C -l $runtime & done o_______________________o | Throughput | Variance | o-----------------------o NO_SHARED_RUNQ: | 17482.03 | 4675.99 | SHARED_RUNQ: | 16697.25 | 9812.23 | o-----------------------o Takeaway: Similar to the Skylake runs, NO_SHARED_RUNQ still beats SHARED_RUNQ, this time by ~4.5%. It's worth noting that in v2, the NO_SHARED_RUNQ was only ~1.8% faster. The variance is very high here, so the results of this benchmark should be taken with a large grain of salt (noting that we do consistently see NO_SHARED_RUNQ on top due to not contending on the shard lock). Finally, let's look at how sharding affects the following schbench incantation suggested by Chris in [4]: schbench -L -m 52 -p 512 -r 10 -t 1 [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c8419d9b-2b31-2190-3058-3625bdbcb13d@meta.com/ The TL;DR is that sharding improves things a lot, but doesn't completely fix the problem. Here are the results from running the schbench command on the 18 core / 36 thread single CCX, single-socket Skylake: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- &shard->lock: 31510503 31510711 0.08 19.98 168932319.64 5.36 31700383 31843851 0.03 17.50 10273968.33 0.32 ------------ &shard->lock 15731657 [<0000000068c0fd75>] pick_next_task_fair+0x4dd/0x510 &shard->lock 15756516 [<000000001faf84f9>] enqueue_task_fair+0x459/0x530 &shard->lock 21766 [<00000000126ec6ab>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 &shard->lock 772 [<000000002886c365>] dequeue_task_fair+0x4c9/0x540 ------------ &shard->lock 23458 [<00000000126ec6ab>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 &shard->lock 16505108 [<000000001faf84f9>] enqueue_task_fair+0x459/0x530 &shard->lock 14981310 [<0000000068c0fd75>] pick_next_task_fair+0x4dd/0x510 &shard->lock 835 [<000000002886c365>] dequeue_task_fair+0x4c9/0x540 These results are when we create only 3 shards (16 logical cores per shard), so the contention may be a result of overly-coarse sharding. If we run the schbench incantation with no sharding whatsoever, we see the following significantly worse lock stats contention: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- &shard->lock: 117868635 118361486 0.09 393.01 1250954097.25 10.57 119345882 119780601 0.05 343.35 38313419.51 0.32 ------------ &shard->lock 59169196 [<0000000060507011>] __enqueue_entity+0xdc/0x110 &shard->lock 59084239 [<00000000f1c67316>] __dequeue_entity+0x78/0xa0 &shard->lock 108051 [<00000000084a6193>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 ------------ &shard->lock 60028355 [<0000000060507011>] __enqueue_entity+0xdc/0x110 &shard->lock 119882 [<00000000084a6193>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 &shard->lock 58213249 [<00000000f1c67316>] __dequeue_entity+0x78/0xa0 The contention is ~3-4x worse if we don't shard at all. This roughly matches the fact that we had 3 shards on the first workload run above. If we make the shards even smaller, the contention is comparably much lower: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ &shard->lock: 13839849 13877596 0.08 13.23 5389564.95 0.39 46910241 48069307 0.06 16.40 16534469.35 0.34 ------------ &shard->lock 3559 [<00000000ea455dcc>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 &shard->lock 6992418 [<000000002266f400>] __dequeue_entity+0x78/0xa0 &shard->lock 6881619 [<000000002a62f2e0>] __enqueue_entity+0xdc/0x110 ------------ &shard->lock 6640140 [<000000002266f400>] __dequeue_entity+0x78/0xa0 &shard->lock 3523 [<00000000ea455dcc>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 &shard->lock 7233933 [<000000002a62f2e0>] __enqueue_entity+0xdc/0x110 Interestingly, SHARED_RUNQ performs worse than NO_SHARED_RUNQ on the schbench benchmark on Milan as well, but we contend more on the rq lock than the shard lock: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- &rq->__lock: 9617614 9656091 0.10 79.64 69665812.00 7.21 18092700 67652829 0.11 82.38 344524858.87 5.09 ----------- &rq->__lock 6301611 [<000000003e63bf26>] task_rq_lock+0x43/0xe0 &rq->__lock 2530807 [<00000000516703f0>] __schedule+0x72/0xaa0 &rq->__lock 109360 [<0000000011be1562>] raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0xa/0x10 &rq->__lock 178218 [<00000000c38a30f9>] sched_ttwu_pending+0x3d/0x170 ----------- &rq->__lock 3245506 [<00000000516703f0>] __schedule+0x72/0xaa0 &rq->__lock 1294355 [<00000000c38a30f9>] sched_ttwu_pending+0x3d/0x170 &rq->__lock 2837804 [<000000003e63bf26>] task_rq_lock+0x43/0xe0 &rq->__lock 1627866 [<0000000011be1562>] raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0xa/0x10 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. &shard->lock: 7338558 7343244 0.10 35.97 7173949.14 0.98 30200858 32679623 0.08 35.59 16270584.52 0.50 ------------ &shard->lock 2004142 [<00000000f8aa2c91>] __dequeue_entity+0x78/0xa0 &shard->lock 2611264 [<00000000473978cc>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 &shard->lock 2727838 [<0000000028f55bb5>] __enqueue_entity+0xdc/0x110 ------------ &shard->lock 2737232 [<00000000473978cc>] newidle_balance+0x45a/0x650 &shard->lock 1693341 [<00000000f8aa2c91>] __dequeue_entity+0x78/0xa0 &shard->lock 2912671 [<0000000028f55bb5>] __enqueue_entity+0xdc/0x110 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... If we look at the lock stats with SHARED_RUNQ disabled, the rq lock still contends the most, but it's significantly less than with it enabled: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- &rq->__lock: 791277 791690 0.12 110.54 4889787.63 6.18 1575996 62390275 0.13 112.66 316262440.56 5.07 ----------- &rq->__lock 263343 [<00000000516703f0>] __schedule+0x72/0xaa0 &rq->__lock 19394 [<0000000011be1562>] raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0xa/0x10 &rq->__lock 4143 [<000000003b542e83>] __task_rq_lock+0x51/0xf0 &rq->__lock 51094 [<00000000c38a30f9>] sched_ttwu_pending+0x3d/0x170 ----------- &rq->__lock 23756 [<0000000011be1562>] raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0xa/0x10 &rq->__lock 379048 [<00000000516703f0>] __schedule+0x72/0xaa0 &rq->__lock 677 [<000000003b542e83>] __task_rq_lock+0x51/0xf0 Worth noting is that increasing the granularity of the shards in general improves very runqueue-heavy workloads such as netperf UDP_RR and this schbench command, but it doesn't necessarily make a big difference for every workload, or for sufficiently small CCXs such as the 7950X. It may make sense to eventually allow users to control this with a debugfs knob, but for now we'll elect to choose a default that resulted in good performance for the benchmarks run for this patch series. Conclusion ========== SHARED_RUNQ in this form provides statistically significant wins for several types of workloads, and various CPU topologies. The reason for this is roughly the same for all workloads: SHARED_RUNQ encourages work conservation inside of a CCX by having a CPU do an O(# per-LLC shards) iteration over the shared_runq shards in an LLC. We could similarly do an O(n) iteration over all of the runqueues in the current LLC when a core is going idle, but that's quite costly (especially for larger LLCs), and sharded SHARED_RUNQ seems to provide a performant middle ground between doing an O(n) walk, and doing an O(1) pull from a single per-LLC shared runq. For the workloads above, kernel compile and hackbench were clear winners for SHARED_RUNQ (especially in __enqueue_entity()). The reason for the improvement in kernel compile is of course that we have a heavily CPU-bound workload where cache locality doesn't mean much; getting a CPU is the #1 goal. As mentioned above, while I didn't expect to see an improvement in hackbench, the results of the benchmark suggest that minimizing runqueue delays is preferable to optimizing for L1/L2 locality. Not all workloads benefit from SHARED_RUNQ, however. Workloads that hammer the runqueue hard, such as netperf UDP_RR, or schbench -L -m 52 -p 512 -r 10 -t 1, tend to run into contention on the shard locks; especially when enqueuing tasks in __enqueue_entity(). This can be mitigated significantly by sharding the shared datastructures within a CCX, but it doesn't eliminate all contention, as described above. Finally, while SHARED_RUNQ in this form encourages work conservation, it of course does not guarantee it given that we don't implement any kind of work stealing between shared_runq's. In the future, we could potentially push CPU utilization even higher by enabling work stealing between shared_runq's, likely between CCXs on the same NUMA node. Originally-by: Roman Gushchin Signed-off-by: David Vernet --- include/linux/sched.h | 2 + kernel/sched/core.c | 13 +++ kernel/sched/fair.c | 238 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- kernel/sched/sched.h | 4 + kernel/sched/topology.c | 4 +- 5 files changed, 256 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h index 2aab7be46f7e..8238069fd852 100644 --- a/include/linux/sched.h +++ b/include/linux/sched.h @@ -769,6 +769,8 @@ struct task_struct { unsigned long wakee_flip_decay_ts; struct task_struct *last_wakee; + struct list_head shared_runq_node; + /* * recent_used_cpu is initially set as the last CPU used by a task * that wakes affine another task. Waker/wakee relationships can diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 385c565da87f..fb7e71d3dc0a 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -4529,6 +4529,7 @@ static void __sched_fork(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *p) #ifdef CONFIG_SMP p->wake_entry.u_flags = CSD_TYPE_TTWU; p->migration_pending = NULL; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->shared_runq_node); #endif init_sched_mm_cid(p); } @@ -9764,6 +9765,18 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cpu) return 0; } +void sched_update_domains(void) +{ + const struct sched_class *class; + + update_sched_domain_debugfs(); + + for_each_class(class) { + if (class->update_domains) + class->update_domains(); + } +} + static void sched_rq_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu) { struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu); diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 9c23e3b948fc..6e740f8da578 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -139,20 +139,235 @@ static int __init setup_sched_thermal_decay_shift(char *str) } __setup("sched_thermal_decay_shift=", setup_sched_thermal_decay_shift); +/** + * struct shared_runq - Per-LLC queue structure for enqueuing and migrating + * runnable tasks within an LLC. + * + * WHAT + * ==== + * + * This structure enables the scheduler to be more aggressively work + * conserving, by placing waking tasks on a per-LLC FIFO queue that can then be + * pulled from when another core in the LLC is going to go idle. + * + * struct rq stores a pointer to its LLC's shared_runq via struct cfs_rq. + * Waking tasks are enqueued in the calling CPU's struct shared_runq in + * __enqueue_entity(), and are opportunistically pulled from the shared_runq + * in newidle_balance(). Tasks enqueued in a shared_runq may be scheduled prior + * to being pulled from the shared_runq, in which case they're simply dequeued + * from the shared_runq in __dequeue_entity(). + * + * There is currently no task-stealing between shared_runqs in different LLCs, + * which means that shared_runq is not fully work conserving. This could be + * added at a later time, with tasks likely only being stolen across + * shared_runqs on the same NUMA node to avoid violating NUMA affinities. + * + * HOW + * === + * + * A shared_runq is comprised of a list, and a spinlock for synchronization. + * Given that the critical section for a shared_runq is typically a fast list + * operation, and that the shared_runq is localized to a single LLC, the + * spinlock will typically only be contended on workloads that do little else + * other than hammer the runqueue. + * + * WHY + * === + * + * As mentioned above, the main benefit of shared_runq is that it enables more + * aggressive work conservation in the scheduler. This can benefit workloads + * that benefit more from CPU utilization than from L1/L2 cache locality. + * + * shared_runqs are segmented across LLCs both to avoid contention on the + * shared_runq spinlock by minimizing the number of CPUs that could contend on + * it, as well as to strike a balance between work conservation, and L3 cache + * locality. + */ +struct shared_runq { + struct list_head list; + raw_spinlock_t lock; +} ____cacheline_aligned; + #ifdef CONFIG_SMP + +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct shared_runq, shared_runqs); + +static struct shared_runq *rq_shared_runq(struct rq *rq) +{ + return rq->cfs.shared_runq; +} + +static void shared_runq_reassign_domains(void) +{ + int i; + struct shared_runq *shared_runq; + struct rq *rq; + struct rq_flags rf; + + for_each_possible_cpu(i) { + rq = cpu_rq(i); + shared_runq = &per_cpu(shared_runqs, per_cpu(sd_llc_id, i)); + + rq_lock(rq, &rf); + rq->cfs.shared_runq = shared_runq; + rq_unlock(rq, &rf); + } +} + +static void __shared_runq_drain(struct shared_runq *shared_runq) +{ + struct task_struct *p, *tmp; + + raw_spin_lock(&shared_runq->lock); + list_for_each_entry_safe(p, tmp, &shared_runq->list, shared_runq_node) + list_del_init(&p->shared_runq_node); + raw_spin_unlock(&shared_runq->lock); +} + +static void update_domains_fair(void) +{ + int i; + struct shared_runq *shared_runq; + + /* Avoid racing with SHARED_RUNQ enable / disable. */ + lockdep_assert_cpus_held(); + + shared_runq_reassign_domains(); + + /* Ensure every core sees its updated shared_runq pointers. */ + synchronize_rcu(); + + /* + * Drain all tasks from all shared_runq's to ensure there are no stale + * tasks in any prior domain runq. This can cause us to drain live + * tasks that would otherwise have been safe to schedule, but this + * isn't a practical problem given how infrequently domains are + * rebuilt. + */ + for_each_possible_cpu(i) { + shared_runq = &per_cpu(shared_runqs, i); + __shared_runq_drain(shared_runq); + } +} + void shared_runq_toggle(bool enabling) -{} +{ + int cpu; + + if (enabling) + return; + + /* Avoid racing with hotplug. */ + lockdep_assert_cpus_held(); + + /* Ensure all cores have stopped enqueueing / dequeuing tasks. */ + synchronize_rcu(); + + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { + int sd_id; + + sd_id = per_cpu(sd_llc_id, cpu); + if (cpu == sd_id) + __shared_runq_drain(rq_shared_runq(cpu_rq(cpu))); + } +} + +static struct task_struct *shared_runq_pop_task(struct rq *rq) +{ + struct task_struct *p; + struct shared_runq *shared_runq; + + shared_runq = rq_shared_runq(rq); + if (list_empty(&shared_runq->list)) + return NULL; + + raw_spin_lock(&shared_runq->lock); + p = list_first_entry_or_null(&shared_runq->list, struct task_struct, + shared_runq_node); + if (p && is_cpu_allowed(p, cpu_of(rq))) + list_del_init(&p->shared_runq_node); + else + p = NULL; + raw_spin_unlock(&shared_runq->lock); + + return p; +} + +static void shared_runq_push_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) +{ + struct shared_runq *shared_runq; + + shared_runq = rq_shared_runq(rq); + raw_spin_lock(&shared_runq->lock); + list_add_tail(&p->shared_runq_node, &shared_runq->list); + raw_spin_unlock(&shared_runq->lock); +} static void shared_runq_enqueue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) -{} +{ + /* + * Only enqueue the task in the shared runqueue if: + * + * - SHARED_RUNQ is enabled + * - The task isn't pinned to a specific CPU + */ + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1) + return; + + shared_runq_push_task(rq, p); +} static int shared_runq_pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf) { - return 0; + struct task_struct *p = NULL; + struct rq *src_rq; + struct rq_flags src_rf; + int ret = -1; + + p = shared_runq_pop_task(rq); + if (!p) + return 0; + + rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf); + raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq); + + src_rq = task_rq_lock(p, &src_rf); + + if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && !task_on_cpu(src_rq, p)) { + update_rq_clock(src_rq); + src_rq = move_queued_task(src_rq, &src_rf, p, cpu_of(rq)); + ret = 1; + } + + if (src_rq != rq) { + task_rq_unlock(src_rq, p, &src_rf); + raw_spin_rq_lock(rq); + } else { + rq_unpin_lock(rq, &src_rf); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, src_rf.flags); + } + rq_repin_lock(rq, rf); + + return ret; } static void shared_runq_dequeue_task(struct task_struct *p) -{} +{ + struct shared_runq *shared_runq; + + if (!list_empty(&p->shared_runq_node)) { + shared_runq = rq_shared_runq(task_rq(p)); + raw_spin_lock(&shared_runq->lock); + /* + * Need to double-check for the list being empty to avoid + * racing with the list being drained on the domain recreation + * or SHARED_RUNQ feature enable / disable path. + */ + if (likely(!list_empty(&p->shared_runq_node))) + list_del_init(&p->shared_runq_node); + raw_spin_unlock(&shared_runq->lock); + } +} /* * For asym packing, by default the lower numbered CPU has higher priority. @@ -12093,6 +12308,16 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf) rcu_read_lock(); sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd); + /* + * Skip <= LLC domains as they likely won't have any tasks if the + * shared runq is empty. + */ + if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ)) { + sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc)); + if (likely(sd)) + sd = sd->parent; + } + if (!READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload) || (sd && this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)) { @@ -12969,6 +13194,7 @@ DEFINE_SCHED_CLASS(fair) = { .task_dead = task_dead_fair, .set_cpus_allowed = set_cpus_allowed_common, + .update_domains = update_domains_fair, #endif .task_tick = task_tick_fair, @@ -13035,6 +13261,7 @@ __init void init_sched_fair_class(void) { #ifdef CONFIG_SMP int i; + struct shared_runq *shared_runq; for_each_possible_cpu(i) { zalloc_cpumask_var_node(&per_cpu(load_balance_mask, i), GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(i)); @@ -13044,6 +13271,9 @@ __init void init_sched_fair_class(void) INIT_CSD(&cpu_rq(i)->cfsb_csd, __cfsb_csd_unthrottle, cpu_rq(i)); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cpu_rq(i)->cfsb_csd_list); #endif + shared_runq = &per_cpu(shared_runqs, i); + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&shared_runq->list); + raw_spin_lock_init(&shared_runq->lock); } open_softirq(SCHED_SOFTIRQ, run_rebalance_domains); diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h index a484bb527ee4..3665dd935649 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h @@ -487,9 +487,11 @@ extern int sched_group_set_idle(struct task_group *tg, long idle); #ifdef CONFIG_SMP extern void set_task_rq_fair(struct sched_entity *se, struct cfs_rq *prev, struct cfs_rq *next); +extern void sched_update_domains(void); #else /* !CONFIG_SMP */ static inline void set_task_rq_fair(struct sched_entity *se, struct cfs_rq *prev, struct cfs_rq *next) { } +static inline void sched_update_domains(void) {} #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */ #endif /* CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED */ @@ -578,6 +580,7 @@ struct cfs_rq { #endif #ifdef CONFIG_SMP + struct shared_runq *shared_runq; /* * CFS load tracking */ @@ -2282,6 +2285,7 @@ struct sched_class { void (*rq_offline)(struct rq *rq); struct rq *(*find_lock_rq)(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq); + void (*update_domains)(void); #endif void (*task_tick)(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int queued); diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c index 05a5bc678c08..8aaf644d4f2c 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c @@ -2576,6 +2576,8 @@ int __init sched_init_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map) doms_cur = &fallback_doms; cpumask_and(doms_cur[0], cpu_map, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN)); err = build_sched_domains(doms_cur[0], NULL); + if (!err) + sched_update_domains(); return err; } @@ -2741,7 +2743,7 @@ void partition_sched_domains_locked(int ndoms_new, cpumask_var_t doms_new[], dattr_cur = dattr_new; ndoms_cur = ndoms_new; - update_sched_domain_debugfs(); + sched_update_domains(); } /*