On 06/04/20 14:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:41:13PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > netperf-udp
> > > > ./5.7.0-rc7 ./5.7.0-rc7 ./5.7.0-rc7
> > > > without-clamp with-clamp with-clamp-tskgrp
> > > >
> > > > Hmean send-64 153.62 ( 0.00%) 151.80 * -1.19%* 155.60 * 1.28%*
> > > > Hmean send-128 306.77 ( 0.00%) 306.27 * -0.16%* 309.39 * 0.85%*
> > > > Hmean send-256 608.54 ( 0.00%) 604.28 * -0.70%* 613.42 * 0.80%*
> > > > Hmean send-1024 2395.80 ( 0.00%) 2365.67 * -1.26%* 2409.50 * 0.57%*
> > > > Hmean send-2048 4608.70 ( 0.00%) 4544.02 * -1.40%* 4665.96 * 1.24%*
> > > > Hmean send-3312 7223.97 ( 0.00%) 7158.88 * -0.90%* 7331.23 * 1.48%*
> > > > Hmean send-4096 8729.53 ( 0.00%) 8598.78 * -1.50%* 8860.47 * 1.50%*
> > > > Hmean send-8192 14961.77 ( 0.00%) 14418.92 * -3.63%* 14908.36 * -0.36%*
> > > > Hmean send-16384 25799.50 ( 0.00%) 25025.64 * -3.00%* 25831.20 * 0.12%*
> > > > Hmean recv-64 153.62 ( 0.00%) 151.80 * -1.19%* 155.60 * 1.28%*
> > > > Hmean recv-128 306.77 ( 0.00%) 306.27 * -0.16%* 309.39 * 0.85%*
> > > > Hmean recv-256 608.54 ( 0.00%) 604.28 * -0.70%* 613.42 * 0.80%*
> > > > Hmean recv-1024 2395.80 ( 0.00%) 2365.67 * -1.26%* 2409.50 * 0.57%*
> > > > Hmean recv-2048 4608.70 ( 0.00%) 4544.02 * -1.40%* 4665.95 * 1.24%*
> > > > Hmean recv-3312 7223.97 ( 0.00%) 7158.88 * -0.90%* 7331.23 * 1.48%*
> > > > Hmean recv-4096 8729.53 ( 0.00%) 8598.78 * -1.50%* 8860.47 * 1.50%*
> > > > Hmean recv-8192 14961.61 ( 0.00%) 14418.88 * -3.63%* 14908.30 * -0.36%*
> > > > Hmean recv-16384 25799.39 ( 0.00%) 25025.49 * -3.00%* 25831.00 * 0.12%*
> > > >
> > > > netperf-tcp
> > > >
> > > > Hmean 64 818.65 ( 0.00%) 812.98 * -0.69%* 826.17 * 0.92%*
> > > > Hmean 128 1569.55 ( 0.00%) 1555.79 * -0.88%* 1586.94 * 1.11%*
> > > > Hmean 256 2952.86 ( 0.00%) 2915.07 * -1.28%* 2968.15 * 0.52%*
> > > > Hmean 1024 10425.91 ( 0.00%) 10296.68 * -1.24%* 10418.38 * -0.07%*
> > > > Hmean 2048 17454.51 ( 0.00%) 17369.57 * -0.49%* 17419.24 * -0.20%*
> > > > Hmean 3312 22509.95 ( 0.00%) 22229.69 * -1.25%* 22373.32 * -0.61%*
> > > > Hmean 4096 25033.23 ( 0.00%) 24859.59 * -0.69%* 24912.50 * -0.48%*
> > > > Hmean 8192 32080.51 ( 0.00%) 31744.51 * -1.05%* 31800.45 * -0.87%*
> > > > Hmean 16384 36531.86 ( 0.00%) 37064.68 * 1.46%* 37397.71 * 2.37%*
> > > >
> > > > The diffs are smaller than on openSUSE Leap 15.1 and some of the
> > > > uclamp taskgroup results are better?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't see the stddev and coeff but these look close to borderline.
> > > Sure, they are marked with a * so it passed a significant test but it's
> > > still a very marginal difference for netperf. It's possible that the
> > > systemd configurations differ in some way that is significant for uclamp
> > > but I don't know what that is.
> >
> > Hmm so what you're saying is that Dietmar didn't reproduce the same problem
> > you're observing? I was hoping to use that to dig more into it.
> >
>
> Not as such, I'm saying that for whatever reason the problem is not as
> visible with Dietmar's setup. It may be machine-specific or distribution
> specific. There are alternative suggestions for testing just the fast
> paths with a pipe test that may be clearer.
I have regained access to the same machine Dietmar ran his tests on. And I got
some weird results to share..
First I tried with `perf bench -r 20 sched pipe -T` command to identify the
cause of the overhead. And indeed I do see the activate/deactivate_task
overhead going up when uclamp is enabled
With uclamp run #1:
2.44% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
1.59% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
With uclamp run #2:
4.55% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
2.34% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
Without uclamp run #1:
0.12% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
0.11% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
Without uclamp run #2:
0.11% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
0.07% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
Looking at the annotation I see in the enqueue
0.08 │ c5: mov %ecx,%esi ▒
0.99 │ and $0xfffff800,%r9d ▒
│ and $0x7ff,%eax ▒
│ lea 0xd4(%rsi),%r13 ▒
0.10 │ or %r9d,%eax ▒
│ bucket->tasks++; ▒
0.03 │ lea (%rsi,%rsi,1),%r11 ▒
│ p->uclamp[clamp_id] = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id); ▒
0.02 │ mov %eax,0x358(%rbx,%rdi,4) ▒
│ bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id]; ▒
0.02 │ movzbl 0x9(%rbx,%r13,4),%ecx ▒
│ bucket->tasks++; ▒
0.74 │ add %rsi,%r11 ▒
│ bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id]; ▒
0.02 │ shr $0x3,%cl ▒
│ bucket->tasks++; ▒
│ and $0x7,%ecx ◆
0.05 │ lea 0x8(%rcx,%r11,2),%rax ▒
3.52 │ addq $0x800,0x8(%r12,%rax,8) ▒
│ uc_se->active = true; ▒
│ orb $0x40,0x9(%rbx,%r13,4) ▒
│ uclamp_idle_reset(rq, clamp_id, uc_se->value); ▒
73.34 │ movzwl 0x8(%rbx,%r13,4),%eax <--- XXXXX ▒
│ uclamp_idle_reset(): ▒
│ if (!(rq->uclamp_flags & UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE)) ▒
│ mov 0xa0(%r12),%r9d ▒
│ mov %r9d,%r10d ▒
│ uclamp_rq_inc_id(): ▒
│ uclamp_idle_reset(rq, clamp_id, uc_se->value)
and at the dequeue
0.07 │ mov 0x8(%rax),%ecx ▒
│ test %ecx,%ecx ▒
│ ↑ je 60 ▒
0.30 │ xor %r14d,%r14d ▒
│ uclamp_rq_dec_id(): ▒
│ bucket->tasks--; ▒
│ mov $0xfffffffffffff800,%r15 ▒
│ bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id]; ▒
0.07 │ 90: mov %r14d,%ecx ▒
│ mov %r14d,%r12d ▒
0.04 │ lea 0xd4(%rcx),%rax ▒
20.06 │ movzbl 0x9(%rsi,%rax,4),%r13d <--- XXXXX ▒
│ SCHED_WARN_ON(!bucket->tasks); ▒
│ lea (%rcx,%rcx,1),%rax ▒
│ add %rcx,%rax ▒
│ bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id]; ▒
0.07 │ shr $0x3,%r13b ▒
│ SCHED_WARN_ON(!bucket->tasks); ▒
0.07 │ and $0x7,%r13d ▒
0.17 │ lea 0x8(%r13,%rax,2),%rax ▒
24.52 │ testq $0xfffffffffffff800,0x8(%rbx,%rax,8) <--- XXXXX ▒
0.34 │ ↓ je 172
.
.
.
0.14 │ mov %ecx,0x40(%rax) ▒
│ ↑ jmpq f8 ▒
1.25 │250: sub $0x8,%rcx ▒
│ uclamp_rq_max_value(): ▒
│ for ( ; bucket_id >= 0; bucket_id--) { ▒
4.97 │ cmp %rcx,%rax ▒
│ ↑ jne 22b ▒
│ uclamp_idle_value(): ▒
│ return uclamp_none(UCLAMP_MIN); ▒
│ xor %ecx,%ecx ▒
│ if (clamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX) { ▒
0.74 │ cmp $0x1,%r14 ▒
│ ↑ jne 23d ▒
│ uclamp_rq_dec_id(): ▒
│ bkt_clamp = uclamp_rq_max_value(rq, clamp_id, uc_se->value); ▒
20.10 │ movzwl 0x35c(%rsi),%ecx <--- XXXXXX ▒
│ uclamp_idle_value(): ▒
│ rq->uclamp_flags |= UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE; ▒
│ orl $0x1,0xa0(%rbx) ▒
│ uclamp_rq_dec_id(): ▒
│ bkt_clamp = uclamp_rq_max_value(rq, clamp_id, uc_se->value); ▒
0.14 │ and $0x7ff,%ecx ▒
│ ↑ jmp 23d
Which I interpreted as accesses to rq->uclamp[].bucket and p->uclamp[] structs.
The movzwl shanangians promoted me to remove the bitfields in case this is
causing some weird effect, and I shortend struct uclamp_bucket to reduce the
potential cache pressure to make it all fit in a single cache line
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 4418f5cb8324..7d0acf250573 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -601,10 +601,10 @@ struct sched_dl_entity {
* default boost can still drop its own boosting to 0%.
*/
struct uclamp_se {
- unsigned int value : bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
- unsigned int bucket_id : bits_per(UCLAMP_BUCKETS);
- unsigned int active : 1;
- unsigned int user_defined : 1;
+ unsigned int value;
+ unsigned int bucket_id;
+ unsigned int active;
+ unsigned int user_defined;
};
#endif /* CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK */
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index db3a57675ccf..a1e7080c48e8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -833,8 +833,8 @@ extern void rto_push_irq_work_func(struct irq_work *work);
* clamp value.
*/
struct uclamp_bucket {
- unsigned long value : bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
- unsigned long tasks : BITS_PER_LONG - bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
+ unsigned short value;
+ unsigned short tasks;
};
/*
This make the perf output look like this now
With patch run #1:
1.34% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
0.44% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
with patch run #2:
2.41% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
0.32% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
So it seems to help the activate_task path a lot, but not as much for the
deactivate_task path. Note that activate_task path was hotter than
deactivate_task without this patch.
Further, I have tried adding a static key like you suggested for psi
With static key disabling uclamp:
0.13% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
0.07% sched-pipe [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
diff --git a/include/linux/sched/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sched/sysctl.h
index d4f6215ee03f..1814baa95c81 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/sysctl.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/sysctl.h
@@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ extern int sched_rt_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
extern int sysctl_sched_uclamp_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
loff_t *ppos);
+extern int sysctl_sched_uclamp_disabled(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
+ void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
+ loff_t *ppos);
#endif
extern int sysctl_numa_balancing(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 9a2fbf98fd6f..8d932b3922c9 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -793,6 +793,8 @@ unsigned int sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_max = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
/* All clamps are required to be less or equal than these values */
static struct uclamp_se uclamp_default[UCLAMP_CNT];
+DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(sched_uclamp_disabled);
+
/* Integer rounded range for each bucket */
#define UCLAMP_BUCKET_DELTA DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, UCLAMP_BUCKETS)
@@ -1020,6 +1022,9 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
{
enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
+ if (static_branch_likely(&sched_uclamp_disabled))
+ return;
+
if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
return;
@@ -1035,6 +1040,9 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
{
enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
+ if (static_branch_likely(&sched_uclamp_disabled))
+ return;
+
if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
return;
@@ -1164,6 +1172,30 @@ int sysctl_sched_uclamp_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
return result;
}
+int sysctl_sched_uclamp_disabled(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
+ void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
+{
+ struct ctl_table t;
+ int err;
+ int state = static_branch_likely(&sched_uclamp_disabled);
+
+ if (write && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+ return -EPERM;
+
+ t = *table;
+ t.data = &state;
+ err = proc_dointvec_minmax(&t, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
+ if (err < 0)
+ return err;
+ if (write) {
+ if (state)
+ static_branch_enable(&sched_uclamp_disabled);
+ else
+ static_branch_disable(&sched_uclamp_disabled);
+ }
+ return err;
+}
+
static int uclamp_validate(struct task_struct *p,
const struct sched_attr *attr)
{
diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
index 8a176d8727a3..ef842cbf1f91 100644
--- a/kernel/sysctl.c
+++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
@@ -453,6 +453,15 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
.mode = 0644,
.proc_handler = sysctl_sched_uclamp_handler,
},
+ {
+ .procname = "sched_uclamp_disabled",
+ .data = NULL,
+ .maxlen = sizeof(unsigned int),
+ .mode = 0644,
+ .proc_handler = sysctl_sched_uclamp_disabled,
+ .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
+ .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
+ },
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP
{
I stopped over here and decided to run with your netperf test to see what
effect this has, and this is where things gets weird.
Running with uclamp gives better results than without uclamp :-/
The nouclamp column is with uclamp disabled at the config level.
The '.disabled' postfix is uclamp disabled via sysctl patch (static key).
uclamp-opt is with the above patch that improved the D$ performance for perf
bench.
I ran uclamp and uclamp-opt with the static key patch applied. I ran them twice
as after noticing the nouclamp is worse than with uclamp I wanted to see how
the numbers differ between runs.
nouclam nouclamp uclam uclamp uclamp.disable uclamp uclamp uclamp
nouclamp recompile uclamp uclamp2 uclamp.disabled opt opt2 opt.disabled
Hmean send-64 158.07 ( 0.00%) 156.99 * -0.68%* 163.83 * 3.65%* 160.97 * 1.83%* 163.93 * 3.71%* 159.62 * 0.98%* 161.79 * 2.36%* 161.14 * 1.94%*
Hmean send-128 314.86 ( 0.00%) 314.41 * -0.14%* 329.05 * 4.51%* 322.88 * 2.55%* 327.88 * 4.14%* 317.56 * 0.86%* 320.72 * 1.86%* 319.62 * 1.51%*
Hmean send-256 629.98 ( 0.00%) 625.78 * -0.67%* 652.67 * 3.60%* 639.98 * 1.59%* 643.99 * 2.22%* 631.96 * 0.31%* 635.75 * 0.92%* 644.10 * 2.24%*
Hmean send-1024 2465.04 ( 0.00%) 2452.29 * -0.52%* 2554.66 * 3.64%* 2509.60 * 1.81%* 2540.71 * 3.07%* 2495.82 * 1.25%* 2490.50 * 1.03%* 2509.86 * 1.82%*
Hmean send-2048 4717.57 ( 0.00%) 4713.17 * -0.09%* 4923.98 * 4.38%* 4811.01 * 1.98%* 4881.87 * 3.48%* 4793.82 * 1.62%* 4820.28 * 2.18%* 4824.60 * 2.27%*
Hmean send-3312 7412.33 ( 0.00%) 7433.42 * 0.28%* 7717.76 * 4.12%* 7522.97 * 1.49%* 7620.99 * 2.82%* 7522.89 * 1.49%* 7614.51 * 2.73%* 7568.51 * 2.11%*
Hmean send-4096 9021.55 ( 0.00%) 8988.71 * -0.36%* 9337.62 * 3.50%* 9075.49 * 0.60%* 9258.34 * 2.62%* 9117.17 * 1.06%* 9175.85 * 1.71%* 9079.50 * 0.64%*
Hmean send-8192 15370.36 ( 0.00%) 15467.63 * 0.63%* 15999.52 * 4.09%* 15467.80 * 0.63%* 15978.69 * 3.96%* 15619.84 * 1.62%* 15395.09 * 0.16%* 15779.73 * 2.66%*
Hmean send-16384 26512.35 ( 0.00%) 26498.18 * -0.05%* 26931.86 * 1.58%* 26513.18 * 0.00%* 26873.98 * 1.36%* 26456.38 * -0.21%* 26467.77 * -0.17%* 26975.04 * 1.75%*
Happy to try more things if you have any suggestions. I am getting a bit
stumped by the netperf results, but haven't tried to profile them. I might try
that but thought I'll report this first as it's time consuming.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
