On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Leo Yan leo.yan@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:18:16PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 October 2016 at 15:05, Patrick Bellasi patrick.bellasi@arm.com
wrote:
On 10-Oct 16:35, Leo Yan wrote:
Add extra two performance optimization methods by setting sysfs nodes:
Method 1: set sched_migration_cost_ns to 0:
By default sched_migration_cost_ns = 50000, scheduler calls
That's 50us...
In fact default value is 500000 = 500us not 50000 = 50us
Sorry, should be 500us.
can_migrate_task() to check if tasks are cache hot or not and it compares sched_migration_cost_ns to avoid migrate tasks frequently.
This introduces side effects to easily pack tasks on the same one
CPU
and introduce latency to spread tasks within multi-cores, especially if we think energy aware scheduling is easily to pack tasks on
single
CPU. So after task packing on one CPU with high utilization, we can easily spread out tasks after we set sched_migration_cost_ns to 0.
... dunno how exactly this metric is used by the scheduler but, according to its name and you explanation, it seems that in the use-case you are targeting, tasks needs to me migrated more often than 50us. Is that the case?
main advantage is that there are sysfs entry for that so it can be tuned for each platform
If set this value to 0, the most benefit I can see is if there have idle CPU and there have two tasks are runnable on another CPU, it can give more chance to migrate one of the runnable tasks onto the idle CPU immediately.
The currently available mechanism to have less latency and spread tasks is to set the prefer_idle flag (spreads tasks in the corresponding cgroup as long as there are idle cores). Is this set in this experiment? Isn't load balancing supposed to be more about throughput and hence "slower" to kick in moving tasks as needed?
As a general comment, I can understand that an hardcoded 50us value could be not generic at all, however: is there any indication on how to properly dimension this value for a specific target?
Maybe a specific set of synthetics experiments can be used to figure out what is the best value to be used. In that case we should probably report in the documentation how to measure and tune experimentally this value instead of just changing an hardcoded value with another one.
Method 2: set busy_factor to 1:
This decreases load balance inteval time, so it will give more
chance
for active load balance for migration running task from little core
to
big core.
Same reasoning as before, how can be sure that the value you are proposing (ie. busy_factor=1) it is really generic enough?
Method 1 can improve prominent performance on one big.LITTLE system (which has CA53x4 + CA72x4 cores), from the Geekbench testing result
the
score can improve performance ~5%.
Tested method 1 with Geekbench on the ARM Juno R2 board for
multi-thread
case, the score can be improved from 2348 to 2368, so can improve performance ~0.84%.
Am I correct on assuming that potentially different values can give us even better performance but we tried and tested only the two values you are proposing?
Yes, I only tried these two values. Just like Patrick suggested, the methodology is more important rather than hard-coded value.
For the 1st test, the root cause was that tasks was hot on a CPU and can't be selected to migrate on other CPU because of its hotness so decreasing the sched_migration_cost_ns directly reduce the hotness period during which a task can't migrate on another CPU
That being said, i'm not sure that this should be put in the Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.tx
I think for EAS, these two paramters are more important than traditional SMP load balance. Because EAS will have more chance to pack tasks onto single CPU or into one cluster, so we need utilize the existed machenism to spread out these tasks, so sched_migration_cost_ns and busy_factors are two things we can rely on.
Moreover, do we have any measure of the impact on energy consumption for the proposed value?
From one member's platform, have not observed power impaction for energy consumption. I will try to use video playback case on Juno to generate out more power data.
Tested method 2 on Juno as well, but it has very minor performance boosting.
That seems to support the idea that what you are proposing are values "optimal" only for performance on a specific platform. Isn't it?
Yes.
Signed-off-by: Leo Yan leo.yan@linaro.org
Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.txt | 24
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.txt
b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.txt
index dab2f90..c0e62fe 100644 --- a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.txt +++ b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.txt @@ -360,3 +360,27 @@ of the cpu from idle/busy power of the shared
resources. The cpu can be tricked
into different per-cpu idle states by disabling the other states.
Based on
various combinations of measurements with specific cpus busy and
disabling
idle-states it is possible to extrapolate the idle-state power.
+Performance tunning method +==========================
+Below setting may impact heavily for performance tunning:
+echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_migration_cost_ns
+After set sched_migration_cost_ns to 0, it is helpful to spread
tasks within
+the big cluster. Otherwise when scheduler executes load balance, it
calls
+can_migrate_task() to check if tasks are cache hot or not and it
compares
+sched_migration_cost_ns to avoid migrate tasks frequently. This
introduce side
+effect to easily pack tasks on the same one CPU and introduce
latency to
+spread tasks within multi-cores, especially if we think about energy
awared
+scheduling to pack tasks on single CPU.
+echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domain0/busy_factor +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domain1/busy_factor
+After set busy_factor to 1, it decreases load balance inteval time.
So if we
+take min_interval = 8, that means we permit the load balance
interval =
+busy_factor * min_interval = 8ms. So this will shorten task
migration latency,
+especially if we want to migrate a running task from little core to
big core
+to trigger active load balance.
1.9.1
-- #include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
eas-dev mailing list eas-dev@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/eas-dev