Re: [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for PLE handler

From: Raghavendra K T
Date: Thu Sep 13 2012 - 07:52:13 EST

* Andrew Theurer <habanero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2012-09-11 13:27:41]:

> On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 11:38 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 09/11/2012 01:42 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 19:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 22:26 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > >>>> +static bool __yield_to_candidate(struct task_struct *curr, struct task_struct *p)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
> > >>>> + return false;
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
> > >>>> + return false;
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Peter,
> > >>>
> > >>> Should we also add a check if the runq has a skip buddy (as pointed out
> > >>> by Raghu) and return if the skip buddy is already set.
> > >>
> > >> Oh right, I missed that suggestion.. the performance improvement went
> > >> from 81% to 139% using this, right?
> > >>
> > >> It might make more sense to keep that separate, outside of this
> > >> function, since its not a strict prerequisite.
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> + if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
> > >>>> + return false;
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + return true;
> > >>>> +}
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> @@ -4323,6 +4340,10 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p,
> > >>> bool preempt)
> > >>>> rq = this_rq();
> > >>>>
> > >>>> again:
> > >>>> + /* optimistic test to avoid taking locks */
> > >>>> + if (!__yield_to_candidate(curr, p))
> > >>>> + goto out_irq;
> > >>>> +
> > >>
> > >> So add something like:
> > >>
> > >> /* Optimistic, if we 'raced' with another yield_to(), don't bother */
> > >> if (p_rq->cfs_rq->skip)
> > >> goto out_irq;
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> p_rq = task_rq(p);
> > >>>> double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> But I do have a question on this optimization though,.. Why do we check
> > >> p_rq->cfs_rq->skip and not rq->cfs_rq->skip ?
> > >>
> > >> That is, I'd like to see this thing explained a little better.
> > >>
> > >> Does it go something like: p_rq is the runqueue of the task we'd like to
> > >> yield to, rq is our own, they might be the same. If we have a ->skip,
> > >> there's nothing we can do about it, OTOH p_rq having a ->skip and
> > >> failing the yield_to() simply means us picking the next VCPU thread,
> > >> which might be running on an entirely different cpu (rq) and could
> > >> succeed?
> > >
> > > Here's two new versions, both include a __yield_to_candidate(): "v3"
> > > uses the check for p_rq->curr in guest mode, and "v4" uses the cfs_rq
> > > skip check. Raghu, I am not sure if this is exactly what you want
> > > implemented in v4.
> > >
> >
> > Andrew, Yes that is what I had. I think there was a mis-understanding.
> > My intention was to if there is a directed_yield happened in runqueue
> > (say rqA), do not bother to directed yield to that. But unfortunately as
> > PeterZ pointed that would have resulted in setting next buddy of a
> > different run queue than rqA.
> > So we can drop this "skip" idea. Pondering more over what to do? can we
> > use next buddy itself ... thinking..
>
> As I mentioned earlier today, I did not have your changes from kvm.git
> tree when I tested my changes. Here are your changes and my changes
> compared:
>
> throughput in MB/sec
>
> kvm_vcpu_on_spin changes: 4636 +/- 15.74%
> yield_to changes: 4515 +/- 12.73%
>
> I would be inclined to stick with your changes which are kept in kvm
> code. I did try both combined, and did not get good results:
>
> both changes: 4074 +/- 19.12%
>
> So, having both is probably not a good idea. However, I feel like
> there's more work to be done. With no over-commit (10 VMs), total
> throughput is 23427 +/- 2.76%. A 2x over-commit will no doubt have some
> overhead, but a reduction to ~4500 is still terrible. By contrast,
> 8-way VMs with 2x over-commit have a total throughput roughly 10% less
> than 8-way VMs with no overcommit (20 vs 10 8-way VMs on 80 cpu-thread
> host). We still have what appears to be scalability problems, but now
> it's not so much in runqueue locks for yield_to(), but now
> get_pid_task():
>

Hi Andrew,
IMHO, reducing the double runqueue lock overhead is a good idea,
and may be we see the benefits when we increase the overcommit further.

The explaination for not seeing good benefit on top of PLE handler
optimization patch is because we filter the yield_to candidates,
and hence resulting in less contention for double runqueue lock.
and extra code overhead during genuine yield_to might have resulted in
some degradation in the case you tested.

However, did you use cfs.next also?. I hope it helps, when we combine.

Here is the result that is showing positive benefit.
I experimented on a 32 core (no HT) PLE machine with 32 vcpu guest(s).

+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
kernbench time in sec, lower is better
+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
base stddev patched stddev %improve
+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
1x 44.3880 1.8699 40.8180 1.9173 8.04271
2x 96.7580 4.2787 93.4188 3.5150 3.45108
+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+


+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
ebizzy record/sec higher is better
+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
base stddev patched stddev %improve
+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
1x 2374.1250 50.9718 3816.2500 54.0681 60.74343
2x 2536.2500 93.0403 2789.3750 204.7897 9.98029
+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+


Below is the patch which combine suggestions of peterZ on your
original approach with cfs.next (already posted by Srikar in the other
thread)

----8<----
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index fbf1fd0..8551f57 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4820,6 +4820,24 @@ void __sched yield(void)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);

+/*
+ * Tests preconditions required for sched_class::yield_to().
+ */
+static bool __yield_to_candidate(struct task_struct *curr, struct task_struct *p,
+ struct rq *p_rq)
+{
+ if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
+ return false;
+
+ if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
+ return false;
+
+ if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
/**
* yield_to - yield the current processor to another thread in
* your thread group, or accelerate that thread toward the
@@ -4844,20 +4862,24 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)

again:
p_rq = task_rq(p);
+
+ /* optimistic test to avoid taking locks */
+ if (!__yield_to_candidate(curr, p, p_rq))
+ goto out_irq;
+
+ /* if next buddy is set, assume yield is in progress */
+ if (p_rq->cfs.next)
+ goto out_irq;
+
double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
goto again;
}

- if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
- goto out;
-
- if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
- goto out;
-
- if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
- goto out;
+ /* validate state, holding p_rq ensures p's state cannot change */
+ if (!__yield_to_candidate(curr, p, p_rq))
+ goto out_unlock;

yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
if (yielded) {
@@ -4877,8 +4899,9 @@ again:
rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
}

-out:
+out_unlock:
double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
+out_irq:
local_irq_restore(flags);

if (yielded)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/