sched: smart wake-affine

wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
extreme ping-pong case.

And testing show it could benefit hackbench 15% at most.

However, the whole stuff is somewhat blindly and time-consuming, some
workload therefore suffer.

And testing show it could damage pgbench 50% at most.

Thus, wake-affine stuff should be smarter, and realise when to stop
it's thankless effort.

This patch introduced per task 'nr_wakee_switch', which will be increased
each time the task switch it's wakee.

So a high 'nr_wakee_switch' means the task has more than one wakee, and
less the wakee number, higher the wakeup frequency.

Now when making the decision on whether to pull or not, pay attention on
the wakee with a high 'nr_wakee_switch', pull such task may benefit wakee,
but that imply waker will face cruel competition later, it could be very
crule or very fast depends on the story behind 'nr_wakee_switch', whatever,
waker therefore suffer.

Furthermore, if waker also has a high 'nr_wakee_switch', that imply multiple
tasks rely on it, waker's higher latency will damage all those tasks, pull
wakee in such cases seems to be a bad deal.

Thus, when 'waker->nr_wakee_switch / wakee->nr_wakee_switch' become higher
and higher, the deal seems to be worse and worse.

This patch therefore help wake-affine stuff to stop it's work when:

	wakee->nr_wakee_switch > factor &&
	waker->nr_wakee_switch > (factor * wakee->nr_wakee_switch)
The factor here is the online cpu number, so more cpu will lead to more pull
since the trial become more severe.

After applied the patch, pgbench show 42% improvement at most.

Test:
	Test with 12 cpu X86 server and tip 3.10.0-rc1.

				base	smart

	| db_size | clients |  tps  | |  tps  |
	+---------+---------+-------+ +-------+
	| 21 MB   |       1 | 10749 | | 10337 |
	| 21 MB   |       2 | 21382 | | 21391 |
	| 21 MB   |       4 | 41570 | | 41808 |
	| 21 MB   |       8 | 52828 | | 58792 |
	| 21 MB   |      12 | 48447 | | 54553 |
	| 21 MB   |      16 | 46246 | | 56726 |	+22.66%
	| 21 MB   |      24 | 43850 | | 56853 |	+29.65%
	| 21 MB   |      32 | 43455 | | 55846 |	+28.51%
	| 7483 MB |       1 |  9290 | |  8848 |
	| 7483 MB |       2 | 19347 | | 19351 |
	| 7483 MB |       4 | 37135 | | 37511 |
	| 7483 MB |       8 | 47310 | | 50210 |
	| 7483 MB |      12 | 42721 | | 49396 |
	| 7483 MB |      16 | 41016 | | 51826 |	+26.36%
	| 7483 MB |      24 | 37540 | | 52579 |	+40.06%
	| 7483 MB |      32 | 36756 | | 51332 |	+39.66%
	| 15 GB   |       1 |  8758 | |  8670 |
	| 15 GB   |       2 | 19204 | | 19249 |
	| 15 GB   |       4 | 36997 | | 37199 |
	| 15 GB   |       8 | 46578 | | 50681 |
	| 15 GB   |      12 | 42141 | | 48671 |
	| 15 GB   |      16 | 40518 | | 51280 |	+26.56%
	| 15 GB   |      24 | 36788 | | 52329 |	+42.24%
	| 15 GB   |      32 | 36056 | | 50350 | +39.64%

CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: reduce calculation effort in fix_small_imbalance

Date	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:00:22 +0800

Actually all below item could be repalced by scaled_busy_load_per_task
	(sds->busiest_load_per_task * SCHED_POWER_SCALE)
		/sds->busiest->sgp->power;

Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: scale the busy and this queue's per-task load before compare

Date	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:00:23 +0800

Since for max_load and this_load, they are the value that already be
scaled. It is not reasonble to get a minimum value between the scaled
and non-scaled value, like below example.
	min(sds->busiest_load_per_task, sds->max_load);

Also add comment over in what condition, there would be cpu power gain
in move the load.

Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: scale cpu load for judgment of group imbalance Date Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:00:24 +0800

We cannot compare two load directly from two cpus, since the cpu power
over two cpu may vary largely.

Suppose we meet such two kind of cpus.
CPU A:
	No real time work, and there are 3 task, with rq->load.weight
being 512.
CPU B:
	Has real time work, and it take 3/4 of the cpu power, which
makes CFS only take 1/4, that is 1024/4=256 cpu power. And over its CFS
runqueue, there is only one task with weight as 128.

Since both cpu's CFS task take for half of the CFS's cpu power, it
should be considered as balanced in such case.

But original judgment like:
        if ((max_cpu_load - min_cpu_load) >= avg_load_per_task &&
            (max_nr_running - min_nr_running) > 1)
It makes (512-128)>=((512+128)/4), and lead to imbalance conclusion...
Make the load as scaled, to avoid such case.

Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>

modified for Mako kernel from LKML reference
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: Use cached value of span instead of calling sched_domain_span()

Date	Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:32:43 +0530

In the beginning of build_sched_groups() we called sched_domain_span() and
cached its return value in span. Few statements later we are calling it again to
get the same pointer.

Lets use the cached value instead as it hasn't changed in between.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: don't call get_group() for covered cpus

Date	Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:32:44 +0530

In build_sched_groups() we don't need to call get_group() for cpus which are
already covered in previous iterations. So, call get_group() after checking if
cpu is covered or not.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: remove WARN_ON(!sd) from init_sched_groups_power()

Date	Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:32:45 +0530

sd can't be NULL in init_sched_groups_power() and so checking it for NULL isn't
useful. In case it is required, then also we need to rearrange the code a bit as
we already accessed invalid pointer sd to get sg: sg = sd->groups.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
Revert "sched: smart wake-affine"

This reverts commit 266c850f48a4a86dc0a1a2d031d3c16dea07e6b4.
sched: Implement smarter wake-affine logic

The wake-affine scheduler feature is currently always trying to pull
the wakee close to the waker. In theory this should be beneficial if
the waker's CPU caches hot data for the wakee, and it's also beneficial
in the extreme ping-pong high context switch rate case.

Testing shows it can benefit hackbench up to 15%.

However, the feature is somewhat blind, from which some workloads
such as pgbench suffer. It's also time-consuming algorithmically.

Testing shows it can damage pgbench up to 50% - far more than the
benefit it brings in the best case.

So wake-affine should be smarter and it should realize when to
stop its thankless effort at trying to find a suitable CPU to wake on.

This patch introduces 'wakee_flips', which will be increased each
time the task flips (switches) its wakee target.

So a high 'wakee_flips' value means the task has more than one
wakee, and the bigger the number, the higher the wakeup frequency.

Now when making the decision on whether to pull or not, pay attention to
the wakee with a high 'wakee_flips', pulling such a task may benefit
the wakee. Also imply that the waker will face cruel competition later,
it could be very cruel or very fast depends on the story behind
'wakee_flips', waker therefore suffers.

Furthermore, if waker also has a high 'wakee_flips', that implies that
multiple tasks rely on it, then waker's higher latency will damage all
of them, so pulling wakee seems to be a bad deal.

Thus, when 'waker->wakee_flips / wakee->wakee_flips' becomes
higher and higher, the cost of pulling seems to be worse and worse.

The patch therefore helps the wake-affine feature to stop its pulling
work when:

	wakee->wakee_flips > factor &&
	waker->wakee_flips > (factor * wakee->wakee_flips)
The 'factor' here is the number of CPUs in the current CPU's NUMA node,
so a bigger node will lead to more pulling since the trial becomes more
severe.

After applying the patch, pgbench shows up to 40% improvements and no regressions.

Tested with 12 cpu x86 server and tip 3.10.0-rc7.

The percentages in the final column highlight the areas with the biggest wins,
all other areas improved as well:

	pgbench		    base	smart

	| db_size | clients |  tps  |	|  tps  |
	+---------+---------+-------+   +-------+
	| 22 MB   |       1 | 10598 |   | 10796 |
	| 22 MB   |       2 | 21257 |   | 21336 |
	| 22 MB   |       4 | 41386 |   | 41622 |
	| 22 MB   |       8 | 51253 |   | 57932 |
	| 22 MB   |      12 | 48570 |   | 54000 |
	| 22 MB   |      16 | 46748 |   | 55982 | +19.75%
	| 22 MB   |      24 | 44346 |   | 55847 | +25.93%
	| 22 MB   |      32 | 43460 |   | 54614 | +25.66%
	| 7484 MB |       1 |  8951 |   |  9193 |
	| 7484 MB |       2 | 19233 |   | 19240 |
	| 7484 MB |       4 | 37239 |   | 37302 |
	| 7484 MB |       8 | 46087 |   | 50018 |
	| 7484 MB |      12 | 42054 |   | 48763 |
	| 7484 MB |      16 | 40765 |   | 51633 | +26.66%
	| 7484 MB |      24 | 37651 |   | 52377 | +39.11%
	| 7484 MB |      32 | 37056 |   | 51108 | +37.92%
	| 15 GB   |       1 |  8845 |   |  9104 |
	| 15 GB   |       2 | 19094 |   | 19162 |
	| 15 GB   |       4 | 36979 |   | 36983 |
	| 15 GB   |       8 | 46087 |   | 49977 |
	| 15 GB   |      12 | 41901 |   | 48591 |
	| 15 GB   |      16 | 40147 |   | 50651 | +26.16%
	| 15 GB   |      24 | 37250 |   | 52365 | +40.58%
	| 15 GB   |      32 | 36470 |   | 50015 | +37.14%
Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/51D50057.9000809@linux.vnet.ibm.com
[ Improved the changelog. ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: Micro-optimize the smart wake-affine logic

Smart wake-affine is using node-size as the factor currently, but the overhead
of the mask operation is high.

Thus, this patch introduce the 'sd_llc_size' percpu variable, which will record
the highest cache-share domain size, and make it to be the new factor, in order
to reduce the overhead and make it more reasonable.

Tested-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Tested-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/51D5008E.6030102@linux.vnet.ibm.com
[ Tidied up the changelog. ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>