update_idle_core() is only done for the case of sched_smt_present.
but test_idle_cores() is done for all machines even those without
SMT.
This can contribute to up 8%+ hackbench performance loss on a
machine like kunpeng 920 which has no SMT. This patch removes the
redundant test_idle_cores() for !SMT machines.
Hackbench is ran with -g {2..14}, for each g it is ran 10 times to get
an average.
$ numactl -N 0 hackbench -p -T -l 20000 -g $1
The below is the result of hackbench w/ and w/o this patch:
g= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
w/o: 1.8151 3.8499 5.5142 7.2491 9.0340 10.7345 12.0929
w/ : 1.8428 3.7436 5.4501 6.9522 8.2882 9.9535 11.3367
+4.1% +8.3% +7.3% +6.3%
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
Change-Id: I0dd9363d2b8da9dda0bed205a5ddc36f75fabeef
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Tashfin Shakeer Rhythm <tashfinshakeerrhythm@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 7c201829c9c1e1ebb1384de66e02b8249d83167e)
Signed-off-by: TogoFire <togofire@mailfence.com>
Signed-off-by: onettboots <blackcocopet@gmail.com>
A bunch of kernels for desktop Linux have been reducing this value to improve interactivity. From Zen[1] to CachyOS[2]. There have been attempts to reduce it on Android as well.
Experiment with reducing the CFS bandwidth slice to 4 msec, 1 less from the default. This is something I honestly don't want userspace to touch so keep it out from sysfs and modify it from the kernel directly instead. I honestly think that the 'interactivity' benefits (if it does hold water) of this change should be reflected on all performance modes on FreshROMs.
Test for performance and battery life.
[1]: https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel/commit/7de2596b35ac1db
[2]: https://github.com/CachyOS/linux/blob/base-5.18/kernel/sched/fair.c
Signed-off-by: John Vincent <git@tenseventyseven.cf>
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>
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>
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>
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
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>
