Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:28:50 +1000 (EST)
From:      Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
To:        Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>
Cc:        avg@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ULE steal_idle questions
Message-ID:  <20170826094725.G1648@besplex.bde.org>
In-Reply-To: <201708251824.v7PIOA6q048321@gw.catspoiler.org>
References:  <201708251824.v7PIOA6q048321@gw.catspoiler.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Don Lewis wrote:

> ...
> Something else that I did not expect is the how frequently threads are
> stolen from the other SMT thread on the same core, even though I
> increased steal_thresh from 2 to 3 to account for the off-by-one
> problem.  This is true even right after the system has booted and no
> significant load has been applied.  My best guess is that because of
> affinity, both the parent and child processes run on the same CPU after
> fork(), and if a number of processes are forked() in quick succession,
> the run queue of that CPU can get really long.  Forcing a thread
> migration in exec() might be a good solution.

Since you are trying a lot of combinations, maybe you can tell us which
ones work best.  SCHED_4BSD works better for me on an old 2-core system.
SCHED_ULE works better on a not-so old 4x2 core (Haswell) system, but I 
don't like it due to its complexity.  It makes differences of at most
+-2% except when mistuned it can give -5% for real time (but better for
CPU and presumably power).

For SCHED_4BSD, I wrote fancy tuning for fork/exec and sometimes get
everything to like up for a 3% improvement (803 seconds instead of 823
on the old system, with -current much slower at 840+ and old versions
of ULE before steal_idle taking 890+).  This is very resource (mainly
cache associativity?) dependent and my tuning makes little difference
on the newer system.  SCHED_ULE still has bugfeatures which tend to
help large builds by reducing context switching, e.g., by bogusly
clamping all CPU-bound threads to nearly maximal priority.

Bruce



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170826094725.G1648>