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

[Juri Lelli]

Hi,

On 04/12/19 19:14, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 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)
> 	49.0000th: 47                           	50.0000th: 33
> 	74.0000th: 64                           	75.0000th: 44
> 	89.0000th: 76                           	90.0000th: 50
> 	94.0000th: 83                           	95.0000th: 53
> 	*98.0000th: 103                         	*99.0000th: 57
> 	98.5000th: 2124                         	99.5000th: 59
> 	98.9000th: 7976                         	99.9000th: 83
> 	min=-1, max=10519                       	min=0, max=117
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 45                           	50.0000th: 34
> 	74.0000th: 61                           	75.0000th: 45
> 	89.0000th: 70                           	90.0000th: 52
> 	94.0000th: 77                           	95.0000th: 56
> 	*98.0000th: 504                         	*99.0000th: 62
> 	98.5000th: 4012                         	99.5000th: 64
> 	98.9000th: 8168                         	99.9000th: 79
> 	min=-1, max=14500                       	min=0, max=123
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 48                           	50.0000th: 35
> 	74.0000th: 65                           	75.0000th: 47
> 	89.0000th: 76                           	90.0000th: 55
> 	94.0000th: 82                           	95.0000th: 59
> 	*98.0000th: 1098                        	*99.0000th: 67
> 	98.5000th: 3988                         	99.5000th: 71
> 	98.9000th: 9360                         	99.9000th: 98
> 	min=-1, max=19283                       	min=0, max=137
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 46                           	50.0000th: 35
> 	74.0000th: 63                           	75.0000th: 46
> 	89.0000th: 73                           	90.0000th: 53
> 	94.0000th: 78                           	95.0000th: 57
> 	*98.0000th: 113                         	*99.0000th: 63
> 	98.5000th: 2316                         	99.5000th: 65
> 	98.9000th: 7704                         	99.9000th: 83
> 	min=-1, max=17976                       	min=0, max=139
> Latency percentiles (usec)                      Latency percentiles (usec)
> 	49.0000th: 46                           	50.0000th: 34
> 	74.0000th: 62                           	75.0000th: 46
> 	89.0000th: 73                           	90.0000th: 53
> 	94.0000th: 79                           	95.0000th: 57
> 	*98.0000th: 97                          	*99.0000th: 64
> 	98.5000th: 1398                         	99.5000th: 70
> 	98.9000th: 8136                         	99.9000th: 100
> 	min=-1, max=10008                       	min=0, max=142
> 
> Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (4 runs):
> 
> context-switches       42,604 ( +-  0.87% )       45,397 ( +-  0.25% )
> cpu-migrations          0,195 ( +-  2.70% )          230 ( +-  7.23% )
> page-faults            16,783 ( +- 14.87% )       16,781 ( +-  9.77% )
> 
> Waiman Long suggested using static_keys.
> 
> Reported-by: Parth Shah <parth at linux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Ihor Pasichnyk <Ihor.Pasichnyk at ibm.com>
> Cc: Parth Shah <parth at linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ihor Pasichnyk <Ihor.Pasichnyk at ibm.com>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli at redhat.com>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman at redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---

I could reproduce the performace regression and can confirm that this
patch fixes it.

Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli at redhat.com>

Thanks,

Juri