On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:22:41PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:

On 1/8/21 7:12 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 03:16:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:

quoted

On 1/6/21 12:30 AM, Barry Song wrote:

quoted

ARM64 server chip Kunpeng 920 has 6 clusters in each NUMA node, and each
cluster has 4 cpus. All clusters share L3 cache data while each cluster
has local L3 tag. On the other hand, each cluster will share some
internal system bus. This means cache is much more affine inside one cluster
than across clusters.

There is a similar need for clustering in x86.  Some x86 cores could share L2 caches that
is similar to the cluster in Kupeng 920 (e.g. on Jacobsville there are 6 clusters
of 4 Atom cores, each cluster sharing a separate L2, and 24 cores sharing L3).  
Having a sched domain at the L2 cluster helps spread load among 
L2 domains.  This will reduce L2 cache contention and help with
performance for low to moderate load scenarios.

IIUC, you are arguing for the exact opposite behaviour, i.e. balancing
between L2 caches while Barry is after consolidating tasks within the
boundaries of a L3 tag cache. One helps cache utilization, the other
communication latency between tasks. Am I missing something? 

IMHO, we need some numbers on the table to say which way to go. Looking
at just benchmarks of one type doesn't show that this is a good idea in
general.

I think it is going to depend on the workload.  If there are dependent
tasks that communicate with one another, putting them together
in the same cluster will be the right thing to do to reduce communication
costs.  On the other hand, if the tasks are independent, putting them together on the same cluster
will increase resource contention and spreading them out will be better.

Agree. That is exactly where I'm coming from. This is all about the task
placement policy. We generally tend to spread tasks to avoid resource
contention, SMT and caches, which seems to be what you are proposing to
extend. I think that makes sense given it can produce significant
benefits.

Any thoughts on what is the right clustering "tag" to use to clump
related tasks together?
Cgroup? Pid? Tasks with same mm?

I think this is the real question. I think the closest thing we have at
the moment is the wakee/waker flip heuristic. This seems to be related.
Perhaps the wake_affine tricks can serve as starting point?

Morten

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel