Thread (8 messages) flat view 8 messages, 5 authors, 2019-12-11

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] powerpc/vcpu: Assume dedicated processors as non-preempt

From: Parth Shah <hidden>
Date: 2019-12-09 09:39:18

Hi,

On 12/5/19 2:02 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
With commit 247f2f6f3c70 ("sched/core: Don't schedule threads on pre-empted
vCPUs"), scheduler avoids preempted vCPUs to schedule tasks on wakeup.
This leads to wrong choice of CPU, which in-turn leads to larger wakeup
latencies. Eventually, it leads to performance regression in latency
sensitive benchmarks like soltp, schbench etc.

On Powerpc, vcpu_is_preempted only looks at yield_count. If the
yield_count is odd, the vCPU is assumed to be preempted. However
yield_count is increased whenever LPAR enters CEDE state. So any CPU
that has entered CEDE state is assumed to be preempted.

Even if vCPU of dedicated LPAR is preempted/donated, it should have
right of first-use since they are suppose to own the vCPU.

On a Power9 System with 32 cores
 # lscpu
Architecture:        ppc64le
Byte Order:          Little Endian
CPU(s):              128
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-127
Thread(s) per core:  8
Core(s) per socket:  1
Socket(s):           16
NUMA node(s):        2
Model:               2.2 (pvr 004e 0202)
Model name:          POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor:   pHyp
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache:           32K
L1i cache:           32K
L2 cache:            512K
L3 cache:            10240K
NUMA node0 CPU(s):   0-63
NUMA node1 CPU(s):   64-127

  # perf stat -a -r 5 ./schbench
v5.4                                     v5.4 + patch
Latency percentiles (usec)               Latency percentiles (usec)
	50.0000th: 45                    	50.0000th: 39
	75.0000th: 62                    	75.0000th: 53
	90.0000th: 71                    	90.0000th: 67
	95.0000th: 77                    	95.0000th: 76
	*99.0000th: 91                   	*99.0000th: 89
	99.5000th: 707                   	99.5000th: 93
	99.9000th: 6920                  	99.9000th: 118
	min=0, max=10048                 	min=0, max=211
Latency percentiles (usec)               Latency percentiles (usec)
	50.0000th: 45                    	50.0000th: 34
	75.0000th: 61                    	75.0000th: 45
	90.0000th: 72                    	90.0000th: 53
	95.0000th: 79                    	95.0000th: 56
	*99.0000th: 691                  	*99.0000th: 61
	99.5000th: 3972                  	99.5000th: 63
	99.9000th: 8368                  	99.9000th: 78
	min=0, max=16606                 	min=0, max=228
Latency percentiles (usec)               Latency percentiles (usec)
	50.0000th: 45                    	50.0000th: 34
	75.0000th: 61                    	75.0000th: 45
	90.0000th: 71                    	90.0000th: 53
	95.0000th: 77                    	95.0000th: 57
	*99.0000th: 106                  	*99.0000th: 63
	99.5000th: 2364                  	99.5000th: 68
	99.9000th: 7480                  	99.9000th: 100
	min=0, max=10001                 	min=0, max=134
Latency percentiles (usec)               Latency percentiles (usec)
	50.0000th: 45                    	50.0000th: 34
	75.0000th: 62                    	75.0000th: 46
	90.0000th: 72                    	90.0000th: 53
	95.0000th: 78                    	95.0000th: 56
	*99.0000th: 93                   	*99.0000th: 61
	99.5000th: 108                   	99.5000th: 64
	99.9000th: 6792                  	99.9000th: 85
	min=0, max=17681                 	min=0, max=121
Latency percentiles (usec)               Latency percentiles (usec)
	50.0000th: 46                    	50.0000th: 33
	75.0000th: 62                    	75.0000th: 44
	90.0000th: 73                    	90.0000th: 51
	95.0000th: 79                    	95.0000th: 54
	*99.0000th: 113                  	*99.0000th: 61
	99.5000th: 2724                  	99.5000th: 64
	99.9000th: 6184                  	99.9000th: 82
	min=0, max=9887                  	min=0, max=121

 Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (5 runs):

context-switches    43,373  ( +-  0.40% )   44,597 ( +-  0.55% )
cpu-migrations       1,211  ( +-  5.04% )      220 ( +-  6.23% )
page-faults         15,983  ( +-  5.21% )   15,360 ( +-  3.38% )

Waiman Long suggested using static_keys.

Reported-by: Parth Shah <redacted>
Reported-by: Ihor Pasichnyk <redacted>
Cc: Parth Shah <redacted>
Cc: Ihor Pasichnyk <redacted>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Phil Auld <redacted>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Gautham R. Shenoy <redacted>
Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Ack-by: Waiman Long [off-list ref]
Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <redacted>
---
Changelog v1 (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1204190/) ->v3:
Code is now under CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR as it depends on CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES.
This was suggested by Waiman Long.

 arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 5 +++--
 arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c              | 4 ++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
index e9a960e28f3c..de817c25deff 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -35,11 +35,12 @@
 #define LOCK_TOKEN	1
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR
+DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(shared_processor);
 #define vcpu_is_preempted vcpu_is_preempted
 static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
 {
-	if (!firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_SPLPAR))
+	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&shared_processor))
 		return false;
 	return !!(be32_to_cpu(lppaca_of(cpu).yield_count) & 1);
 }
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
index 50d68d21ddcc..ffb971f3a63c 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
@@ -1568,9 +1568,13 @@ int prrn_is_enabled(void)
 	return prrn_enabled;
 }
 
+DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(shared_processor);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(shared_processor);
+
 void __init shared_proc_topology_init(void)
 {
 	if (lppaca_shared_proc(get_lppaca())) {
+		static_branch_enable(&shared_processor);
 		bitmap_fill(cpumask_bits(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask),
 			    nr_cpumask_bits);
 		numa_update_cpu_topology(false);
I have tested this patch on Guest KVM with following configuration:
Architecture:        ppc64le
Byte Order:          Little Endian
CPU(s):              88
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-87
Thread(s) per core:  1
Core(s) per socket:  1
Socket(s):           88
NUMA node(s):        1
Model:               2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name:          POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor:   KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache:           32K
L1i cache:           32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s):   0-87

- Baseline kernel: v5.4

Setup:
=======
- 2 KVM guests: Both sharing same set of CPUs.
- First guest is idle
- Second guest executes 'schbench -r 30'
- Hypervisor details:
  - Architecture: POWER9
  - CPU(s): 88
  - Socket(s): 1
  - kernel: v5.4


Results:
===========
- schbench -r 30
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
|   Latency %ile | v5.4         | v5.4 + patch    |
+================+==============+=================+
|          50    | 28 (+- 1)    | 22.625 (+- 0.7) |
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
|          75    | 330 (+- 107) | 67 (+- 36)      |
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
|          90    | 463 (+- 14)  | 447 (+- 5)      |
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
|          95    | 486 (+- 27)  | 472 (+- 7.3)    |
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
|          99    | 851 (+- 83)  | 709 (+- 77)     |
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
|          99.5  | 884 (+- 51)  | 865 (+- 57)     |
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+
|          99.99 | 1038 (+- 72) | 961 (+- 36)     |
+----------------+--------------+-----------------+


Tested-by: Parth Shah <redacted>


Best,
Parth
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help