The following XFS commit:
8ab39f11d9 ("xfs: prevent CIL push holdoff in log recovery")
changed the logic from using bound workqueues to using unbound
workqueues. Functionally this makes sense but it was observed at the
time that the dbench performance dropped quite a lot and CPU migrations
were increased.
The current pattern of the task migration is straight-forward. With XFS,
an IO issuer delegates work to xlog_cil_push_work ()on an unbound kworker.
This runs on a nearby CPU and on completion, dbench wakes up on its old CPU
as it is still idle and no migration occurs. dbench then queues the real
IO on the blk_mq_requeue_work() work item which runs on a bound kworker
which is forced to run on the same CPU as dbench. When IO completes,
the bound kworker wakes dbench but as the kworker is a bound but,
real task, the CPU is not considered idle and dbench gets migrated by
select_idle_sibling() to a new CPU. dbench may ping-pong between two CPUs
for a while but ultimately it starts a round-robin of all CPUs sharing
the same LLC. High-frequency migration on each IO completion has poor
performance overall. It has negative implications both in commication
costs and power management. mpstat confirmed that at low thread counts
that all CPUs sharing an LLC has low level of activity.
Note that even if the CIL patch was reverted, there still would
be migrations but the impact is less noticeable. It turns out that
individually the scheduler, XFS, blk-mq and workqueues all made sensible
decisions but in combination, the overall effect was sub-optimal.
This patch special cases the IO issue/completion pattern and allows
a bound kworker waker and a task wakee to stack on the same CPU if
there is a strong chance they are directly related. The expectation
is that the kworker is likely going back to sleep shortly. This is not
guaranteed as the IO could be queued asynchronously but there is a very
strong relationship between the task and kworker in this case that would
justify stacking on the same CPU instead of migrating. There should be
few concerns about kworker starvation given that the special casing is
only when the kworker is the waker.
DBench on XFS
MMTests config: io-dbench4-async modified to run on a fresh XFS filesystem
UMA machine with 8 cores sharing LLC
5.5.0-rc7 5.5.0-rc7
tipsched-20200124 kworkerstack
Amean 1 22.63 ( 0.00%) 20.54 * 9.23%*
Amean 2 25.56 ( 0.00%) 23.40 * 8.44%*
Amean 4 28.63 ( 0.00%) 27.85 * 2.70%*
Amean 8 37.66 ( 0.00%) 37.68 ( -0.05%)
Amean 64 469.47 ( 0.00%) 468.26 ( 0.26%)
Stddev 1 1.00 ( 0.00%) 0.72 ( 28.12%)
Stddev 2 1.62 ( 0.00%) 1.97 ( -21.54%)
Stddev 4 2.53 ( 0.00%) 3.58 ( -41.19%)
Stddev 8 5.30 ( 0.00%) 5.20 ( 1.92%)
Stddev 64 86.36 ( 0.00%) 94.53 ( -9.46%)
NUMA machine, 48 CPUs total, 24 CPUs share cache
5.5.0-rc7 5.5.0-rc7
tipsched-20200124 kworkerstack-v1r2
Amean 1 58.69 ( 0.00%) 30.21 * 48.53%*
Amean 2 60.90 ( 0.00%) 35.29 * 42.05%*
Amean 4 66.77 ( 0.00%) 46.55 * 30.28%*
Amean 8 81.41 ( 0.00%) 68.46 * 15.91%*
Amean 16 113.29 ( 0.00%) 107.79 * 4.85%*
Amean 32 199.10 ( 0.00%) 198.22 * 0.44%*
Amean 64 478.99 ( 0.00%) 477.06 * 0.40%*
Amean 128 1345.26 ( 0.00%) 1372.64 * -2.04%*
Stddev 1 2.64 ( 0.00%) 4.17 ( -58.08%)
Stddev 2 4.35 ( 0.00%) 5.38 ( -23.73%)
Stddev 4 6.77 ( 0.00%) 6.56 ( 3.00%)
Stddev 8 11.61 ( 0.00%) 10.91 ( 6.04%)
Stddev 16 18.63 ( 0.00%) 19.19 ( -3.01%)
Stddev 32 38.71 ( 0.00%) 38.30 ( 1.06%)
Stddev 64 100.28 ( 0.00%) 91.24 ( 9.02%)
Stddev 128 186.87 ( 0.00%) 160.34 ( 14.20%)
Dbench has been modified to report the time to complete a single "load
file". This is a more meaningful metric for dbench that a throughput
metric as the benchmark makes many different system calls that are not
throughput-related
Patch shows a 9.23% and 48.53% reduction in the time to process a load
file with the difference partially explained by the number of CPUs sharing
a LLC. In a separate run, task migrations were almost eliminated by the
patch for low client counts. In case people have issue with the metric
used for the benchmark, this is a comparison of the throughputs as
reported by dbench on the NUMA machine.
dbench4 Throughput (misleading but traditional)
5.5.0-rc7 5.5.0-rc7
tipsched-20200124 kworkerstack-v1r2
Hmean 1 321.41 ( 0.00%) 617.82 * 92.22%*
Hmean 2 622.87 ( 0.00%) 1066.80 * 71.27%*
Hmean 4 1134.56 ( 0.00%) 1623.74 * 43.12%*
Hmean 8 1869.96 ( 0.00%) 2212.67 * 18.33%*
Hmean 16 2673.11 ( 0.00%) 2806.13 * 4.98%*
Hmean 32 3032.74 ( 0.00%) 3039.54 ( 0.22%)
Hmean 64 2514.25 ( 0.00%) 2498.96 * -0.61%*
Hmean 128 1778.49 ( 0.00%) 1746.05 * -1.82%*
Note that this is somewhat specific to XFS and ext4 shows no performance
difference as it does not rely on kworkers in the same way. No major
problem was observed running other workloads on different machines although
not all tests have completed yet.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200128154006.GD3466@techsingularity.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
52262ee567