Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1727250
| From | Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? |
| Date | 2017-09-06 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <umElI-7Em-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <umAUN-57m-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <umDSG-7ph-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 1:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:13:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> I'm running e7d0c41ecc2e372a81741a30894f556afec24315 from Linus' tree >> today, and I'm seeing abysmal scheduler performance. Running make -j4 >> ends up with all the tasks on CPU 3 most of the time (on my >> 4-logical-thread laptop). taskset -c 0 whatever puts whatever on CPU >> 0, but plain while true; do true; done puts the infinite loop on CPU 3 >> right along with the make -j4 tasks. >> >> This is on Fedora 26, and I don't think I'm doing anything weird. >> systemd has enabled the cpu controller, but it doesn't seem to have >> configured anything or created any non-root cgroups. >> >> Just a heads up. I haven't tried to diagnose it at all. > > "make O=defconfig-build -j80" results in: > > %Cpu0 : 90.7 us, 9.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu1 : 88.7 us, 11.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu2 : 93.5 us, 6.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu3 : 86.8 us, 13.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu4 : 89.7 us, 10.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu5 : 96.3 us, 3.7 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu6 : 95.3 us, 4.7 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu7 : 94.4 us, 5.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu8 : 91.7 us, 8.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu9 : 94.3 us, 5.7 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu10 : 90.7 us, 9.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu11 : 96.2 us, 3.8 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu12 : 91.5 us, 8.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu13 : 90.6 us, 9.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu14 : 97.2 us, 2.8 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu15 : 89.7 us, 10.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu16 : 90.6 us, 9.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu17 : 93.4 us, 6.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu18 : 90.6 us, 9.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu19 : 92.5 us, 7.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu20 : 94.4 us, 5.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu21 : 90.7 us, 9.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu22 : 92.5 us, 7.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu23 : 90.7 us, 9.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu24 : 91.6 us, 8.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu25 : 93.5 us, 6.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu26 : 93.4 us, 5.7 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.9 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu27 : 92.5 us, 7.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu28 : 92.5 us, 7.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu29 : 88.8 us, 11.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu30 : 90.6 us, 9.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu31 : 93.5 us, 6.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu32 : 93.5 us, 6.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu33 : 93.4 us, 6.6 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu34 : 90.7 us, 9.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu35 : 93.5 us, 6.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu36 : 90.7 us, 9.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu37 : 97.2 us, 2.8 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu38 : 92.5 us, 7.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > %Cpu39 : 92.6 us, 7.4 sy, 0.0 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st > > Do you have a .config somewhere? I'll attach tomorrow. I'll also test in a VM. > Are you running with the systemd? Is it > creating cpu cgroups? Yes systemd, no cgroups. > > Any specifics on your setup? On further fiddling, I only see this after a suspend and resume cycle.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2017-09-06 07:20 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 10:30 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2017-09-06 11:00 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 11:10 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 18:20 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-09-07 08:20 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-09-07 09:40 +0200
[PATCH] sched/cpuset/pm: Fix cpuset vs suspend-resume Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-07 11:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/cpuset/pm: Fix cpuset vs suspend-resume Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-07 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/cpuset/pm: Fix cpuset vs suspend-resume "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/cpuset/pm: Fix cpuset vs suspend-resume Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2017-09-07 22:40 +0200
[tip:sched/urgent] sched/cpuset/pm: Fix cpuset vs. suspend-resume bugs tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2017-09-07 12:40 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> - 2017-09-06 11:20 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 11:30 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 12:50 +0200
Re: Abysmal scheduler performance in Linus' tree? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 13:00 +0200
[tip:sched/urgent] sched/fair: Fix wake_affine_llc() balancing rules tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2017-09-07 10:30 +0200
csiph-web