| Message ID | 20230121042436.2661843-1-yury.norov@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | sched: cpumask: improve on cpumask_local_spread() locality | expand |
On 21/01/2023 6:24, Yury Norov wrote: > cpumask_local_spread() currently checks local node for presence of i'th > CPU, and then if it finds nothing makes a flat search among all non-local > CPUs. We can do it better by checking CPUs per NUMA hops. > > This has significant performance implications on NUMA machines, for example > when using NUMA-aware allocated memory together with NUMA-aware IRQ > affinity hints. > > Performance tests from patch 8 of this series for mellanox network > driver show: > > TCP multi-stream, using 16 iperf3 instances pinned to 16 cores (with aRFS on). > Active cores: 64,65,72,73,80,81,88,89,96,97,104,105,112,113,120,121 > > +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ > | | BW (Gbps) | TX side CPU util | RX side CPU util | > +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ > | Baseline | 52.3 | 6.4 % | 17.9 % | > +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ > | Applied on TX side only | 52.6 | 5.2 % | 18.5 % | > +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ > | Applied on RX side only | 94.9 | 11.9 % | 27.2 % | > +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ > | Applied on both sides | 95.1 | 8.4 % | 27.3 % | > +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ > > Bottleneck in RX side is released, reached linerate (~1.8x speedup). > ~30% less cpu util on TX. > > This series was supposed to be included in v6.2, but that didn't happen. It > spent enough in -next without any issues, so I hope we'll finally see it > in v6.3. > > I believe, the best way would be moving it with scheduler patches, but I'm > OK to try again with bitmap branch as well. Now that Yury dropped several controversial bitmap patches form the PR, the rest are mostly in sched, or new API that's used by sched. Valentin, what do you think? Can you take it to your sched branch? > > Tariq Toukan (1): > net/mlx5e: Improve remote NUMA preferences used for the IRQ affinity > hints > > Valentin Schneider (2): > sched/topology: Introduce sched_numa_hop_mask() > sched/topology: Introduce for_each_numa_hop_mask() > > Yury Norov (6): > lib/find: introduce find_nth_and_andnot_bit > cpumask: introduce cpumask_nth_and_andnot > sched: add sched_numa_find_nth_cpu() > cpumask: improve on cpumask_local_spread() locality > lib/cpumask: reorganize cpumask_local_spread() logic > lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread() > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eq.c | 18 +++- > include/linux/cpumask.h | 20 +++++ > include/linux/find.h | 33 +++++++ > include/linux/topology.h | 33 +++++++ > kernel/sched/topology.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++ > lib/cpumask.c | 52 ++++++----- > lib/find_bit.c | 9 ++ > 7 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >
On 22/01/23 14:57, Tariq Toukan wrote: > On 21/01/2023 6:24, Yury Norov wrote: >> >> This series was supposed to be included in v6.2, but that didn't happen. It >> spent enough in -next without any issues, so I hope we'll finally see it >> in v6.3. >> >> I believe, the best way would be moving it with scheduler patches, but I'm >> OK to try again with bitmap branch as well. > > Now that Yury dropped several controversial bitmap patches form the PR, > the rest are mostly in sched, or new API that's used by sched. > > Valentin, what do you think? Can you take it to your sched branch? > I would if I had one :-) Peter/Ingo, any objections to stashing this in tip/sched/core?
On 23/01/2023 11:57, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 22/01/23 14:57, Tariq Toukan wrote: >> On 21/01/2023 6:24, Yury Norov wrote: >>> >>> This series was supposed to be included in v6.2, but that didn't happen. It >>> spent enough in -next without any issues, so I hope we'll finally see it >>> in v6.3. >>> >>> I believe, the best way would be moving it with scheduler patches, but I'm >>> OK to try again with bitmap branch as well. >> >> Now that Yury dropped several controversial bitmap patches form the PR, >> the rest are mostly in sched, or new API that's used by sched. >> >> Valentin, what do you think? Can you take it to your sched branch? >> > > I would if I had one :-) > Oh I see :) > Peter/Ingo, any objections to stashing this in tip/sched/core? > Hi Peter and Ingo, Can you please look into it? So we'll have enough time to act (in case...) during this kernel. We already missed one kernel... Thanks, Tariq
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 10:07:58 +0200 Tariq Toukan wrote: > > Peter/Ingo, any objections to stashing this in tip/sched/core? > > Can you please look into it? So we'll have enough time to act (in > case...) during this kernel. > > We already missed one kernel... We really need this in linux-next by the end of the week. PTAL.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 12:22:06 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 10:07:58 +0200 Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > Peter/Ingo, any objections to stashing this in tip/sched/core? > > > > Can you please look into it? So we'll have enough time to act (in > > case...) during this kernel. > > > > We already missed one kernel... > > We really need this in linux-next by the end of the week. PTAL. Peter, could you please take a look? Linux doesn't have an API for basic, common sense IRQ distribution on AMD systems. It's important :(
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 9:33 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 12:22:06 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 10:07:58 +0200 Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > Peter/Ingo, any objections to stashing this in tip/sched/core? > > > > > > Can you please look into it? So we'll have enough time to act (in > > > case...) during this kernel. > > > > > > We already missed one kernel... > > > > We really need this in linux-next by the end of the week. PTAL. > > Peter, could you please take a look? Linux doesn't have an API for > basic, common sense IRQ distribution on AMD systems. It's important :( FWIW, it's already been in linux-next since mid-December through the bitmap branch, and no issues were reported so far. Thanks, Yury
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:57:43 +0000 Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 22/01/23 14:57, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > On 21/01/2023 6:24, Yury Norov wrote: > >> > >> This series was supposed to be included in v6.2, but that didn't happen. It > >> spent enough in -next without any issues, so I hope we'll finally see it > >> in v6.3. > >> > >> I believe, the best way would be moving it with scheduler patches, but I'm > >> OK to try again with bitmap branch as well. > > > > Now that Yury dropped several controversial bitmap patches form the PR, > > the rest are mostly in sched, or new API that's used by sched. > > > > Valentin, what do you think? Can you take it to your sched branch? > > I would if I had one :-) > > Peter/Ingo, any objections to stashing this in tip/sched/core? No replies... so let me take it via networking.
Hello: This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (master) by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>: On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 20:24:27 -0800 you wrote: > cpumask_local_spread() currently checks local node for presence of i'th > CPU, and then if it finds nothing makes a flat search among all non-local > CPUs. We can do it better by checking CPUs per NUMA hops. > > This has significant performance implications on NUMA machines, for example > when using NUMA-aware allocated memory together with NUMA-aware IRQ > affinity hints. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [1/9] lib/find: introduce find_nth_and_andnot_bit https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/43245117806f - [2/9] cpumask: introduce cpumask_nth_and_andnot https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/62f4386e564d - [3/9] sched: add sched_numa_find_nth_cpu() https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/cd7f55359c90 - [4/9] cpumask: improve on cpumask_local_spread() locality https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/406d394abfcd - [5/9] lib/cpumask: reorganize cpumask_local_spread() logic https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/b1beed72b8b7 - [6/9] sched/topology: Introduce sched_numa_hop_mask() https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/9feae65845f7 - [7/9] sched/topology: Introduce for_each_numa_hop_mask() https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/06ac01721f7d - [8/9] net/mlx5e: Improve remote NUMA preferences used for the IRQ affinity hints https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/2acda57736de - [9/9] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread() https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/2ac4980c57f5 You are awesome, thank you!
cpumask_local_spread() currently checks local node for presence of i'th CPU, and then if it finds nothing makes a flat search among all non-local CPUs. We can do it better by checking CPUs per NUMA hops. This has significant performance implications on NUMA machines, for example when using NUMA-aware allocated memory together with NUMA-aware IRQ affinity hints. Performance tests from patch 8 of this series for mellanox network driver show: TCP multi-stream, using 16 iperf3 instances pinned to 16 cores (with aRFS on). Active cores: 64,65,72,73,80,81,88,89,96,97,104,105,112,113,120,121 +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ | | BW (Gbps) | TX side CPU util | RX side CPU util | +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ | Baseline | 52.3 | 6.4 % | 17.9 % | +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ | Applied on TX side only | 52.6 | 5.2 % | 18.5 % | +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ | Applied on RX side only | 94.9 | 11.9 % | 27.2 % | +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ | Applied on both sides | 95.1 | 8.4 % | 27.3 % | +-------------------------+-----------+------------------+------------------+ Bottleneck in RX side is released, reached linerate (~1.8x speedup). ~30% less cpu util on TX. This series was supposed to be included in v6.2, but that didn't happen. It spent enough in -next without any issues, so I hope we'll finally see it in v6.3. I believe, the best way would be moving it with scheduler patches, but I'm OK to try again with bitmap branch as well. Tariq Toukan (1): net/mlx5e: Improve remote NUMA preferences used for the IRQ affinity hints Valentin Schneider (2): sched/topology: Introduce sched_numa_hop_mask() sched/topology: Introduce for_each_numa_hop_mask() Yury Norov (6): lib/find: introduce find_nth_and_andnot_bit cpumask: introduce cpumask_nth_and_andnot sched: add sched_numa_find_nth_cpu() cpumask: improve on cpumask_local_spread() locality lib/cpumask: reorganize cpumask_local_spread() logic lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread() drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eq.c | 18 +++- include/linux/cpumask.h | 20 +++++ include/linux/find.h | 33 +++++++ include/linux/topology.h | 33 +++++++ kernel/sched/topology.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++ lib/cpumask.c | 52 ++++++----- lib/find_bit.c | 9 ++ 7 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)