Commit graph

7 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Pierre Gondois
da0a9d1d3a sched/fair: Use all little CPUs for CPU-bound workloads
commit 3af7524b14198f5159a86692d57a9f28ec9375ce upstream.

Running N CPU-bound tasks on an N CPUs platform:

- with asymmetric CPU capacity

- not being a DynamIq system (i.e. having a PKG level sched domain
  without the SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag set)

.. might result in a task placement where two tasks run on a big CPU
and none on a little CPU. This placement could be more optimal by
using all CPUs.

Testing platform:

  Juno-r2:
    - 2 big CPUs (1-2), maximum capacity of 1024
    - 4 little CPUs (0,3-5), maximum capacity of 383

Testing workload ([1]):

  Spawn 6 CPU-bound tasks. During the first 100ms (step 1), each tasks
  is affine to a CPU, except for:

    - one little CPU which is left idle.
    - one big CPU which has 2 tasks affine.

  After the 100ms (step 2), remove the cpumask affinity.

Behavior before the patch:

  During step 2, the load balancer running from the idle CPU tags sched
  domains as:

  - little CPUs: 'group_has_spare'. Cf. group_has_capacity() and
    group_is_overloaded(), 3 CPU-bound tasks run on a 4 CPUs
    sched-domain, and the idle CPU provides enough spare capacity
    regarding the imbalance_pct

  - big CPUs: 'group_overloaded'. Indeed, 3 tasks run on a 2 CPUs
    sched-domain, so the following path is used:

      group_is_overloaded()
      \-if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight) return true;

    The following path which would change the migration type to
    'migrate_task' is not taken:

      calculate_imbalance()
      \-if (env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE && env->imbalance == 0)

    as the local group has some spare capacity, so the imbalance
    is not 0.

  The migration type requested is 'migrate_util' and the busiest
  runqueue is the big CPU's runqueue having 2 tasks (each having a
  utilization of 512). The idle little CPU cannot pull one of these
  task as its capacity is too small for the task. The following path
  is used:

   detach_tasks()
   \-case migrate_util:
     \-if (util > env->imbalance) goto next;

After the patch:

As the number of failed balancing attempts grows (with
'nr_balance_failed'), progressively make it easier to migrate
a big task to the idling little CPU. A similar mechanism is
used for the 'migrate_load' migration type.

Improvement:

Running the testing workload [1] with the step 2 representing
a ~10s load for a big CPU:

  Before patch: ~19.3s
  After patch:  ~18s (-6.7%)

Similar issue reported at:

  https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230716014125.139577-1-qyousef@layalina.io/

Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Acked-by: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231206090043.634697-1-pierre.gondois@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2024-11-23 23:20:13 +01:00
Tejun Heo
799aef6e9d sched/fair: set_load_weight() must also call reweight_task() for SCHED_IDLE tasks
commit d329605287020c3d1c3b0dadc63d8208e7251382 upstream.

When a task's weight is being changed, set_load_weight() is called with
@update_load set. As weight changes aren't trivial for the fair class,
set_load_weight() calls fair.c::reweight_task() for fair class tasks.

However, set_load_weight() first tests task_has_idle_policy() on entry and
skips calling reweight_task() for SCHED_IDLE tasks. This is buggy as
SCHED_IDLE tasks are just fair tasks with a very low weight and they would
incorrectly skip load, vlag and position updates.

Fix it by updating reweight_task() to take struct load_weight as idle weight
can't be expressed with prio and making set_load_weight() call
reweight_task() for SCHED_IDLE tasks too when @update_load is set.

Fixes: 9059393e4ec1 ("sched/fair: Use reweight_entity() for set_user_nice()")
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.15+
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240624102331.GI31592@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2024-11-23 23:20:12 +01:00
friedrich420
5afb8f94f1 Kernel/sched: Reduce Latency [Pafcholini]
Signed-off-by: HolyAngel <slverwolf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Salllz <sal235222727@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: alanndz <alanndz7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Cyber Knight <cyberknight755@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Little-W <1405481963@qq.com>
2024-11-19 18:05:31 +01:00
Sultan Alsawaf
419052d8e5 sched/fair: Compile out NUMA code entirely when NUMA is disabled
Scheduler code is very hot and every little optimization counts. Instead
of constantly checking sched_numa_balancing when NUMA is disabled,
compile it out.

Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
2024-11-19 18:05:24 +01:00
Clement Courbet
d4b05cdad5 sched: Optimize __calc_delta()
A significant portion of __calc_delta() time is spent in the loop
shifting a u64 by 32 bits. Use `fls` instead of iterating.

This is ~7x faster on benchmarks.

The generic `fls` implementation (`generic_fls`) is still ~4x faster
than the loop.
Architectures that have a better implementation will make use of it. For
example, on x86 we get an additional factor 2 in speed without dedicated
implementation.

On GCC, the asm versions of `fls` are about the same speed as the
builtin. On Clang, the versions that use fls are more than twice as
slow as the builtin. This is because the way the `fls` function is
written, clang puts the value in memory:
https://godbolt.org/z/EfMbYe. This bug is filed at
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?idI406.

```
name                                   cpu/op
BM_Calc<__calc_delta_loop>             9.57ms Â=B112%
BM_Calc<__calc_delta_generic_fls>      2.36ms Â=B113%
BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls>          2.45ms Â=B113%
BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls_nomem>    1.66ms Â=B112%
BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls64>        2.46ms Â=B113%
BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls64_nomem>  1.34ms Â=B115%
BM_Calc<__calc_delta_builtin>          1.32ms Â=B111%
```

Signed-off-by: Clement Courbet <courbet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210303224653.2579656-1-joshdon@google.com
2024-11-19 18:05:19 +01:00
Sultan Alsawaf
fa6b06bf46 sched/fair: Always update CPU capacity when load balancing
Limiting CPU capacity updates, which are quite cheap, results in worse
balancing decisions during opportunistic balancing (e.g., SD_BALANCE_WAKE).
This causes opportunistic placement decisions to be skewed using stale CPU
capacity data, and when a CPU isn't idling much, its capacity suffers from
even more staleness since the only exception to the 100 ms capacity update
ratelimit is a CPU exiting idle.

Since the capacity updates are cheap, always do it when load balancing in
order to improve opportunistic task placement decisions.

Change-Id: If1d451ce742fd093010057e31e71012d47fad70a
Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
2024-11-19 17:34:49 +01:00
Gabriel2392
7ed7ee9edf Import A536BXXU9EXDC 2024-06-15 16:02:09 -03:00