Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: credit2: limit the max number of CPUs in a runqueue

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 26.05.2020 23:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 14:52 +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 30.04.20 14:28, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>> That being said, I can try to make things a bit more fair, when
>>> CPUs
>>> come up and are added to the pool. Something around the line of
>>> adding
>>> them to the runqueue with the least number of CPUs in it (among the
>>> suitable ones, of course).
>>>
>>> With that, when the user removes 4 CPUs, we will have the 6 vs 10
>>> situation. But we would make sure that, when she adds them back, we
>>> will go back to 10 vs. 10, instead than, say, 6 vs 14 or something
>>> like
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Was something like this that you had in mind? And in any case, what
>>> do
>>> you think about it?
>>
>> Yes, this would be better already.
>>
> So, a couple of thoughts. Doing something like what I tried to describe
> above is not too bad, and I have it pretty much ready.
> 
> With that, on an Intel system with 96 CPUs on two sockets, and
> max_cpus_per_runqueue set to 16, I got, after boot, instead of just 2
> giant runqueues with 48 CPUs in each:
> 
>  - 96 CPUs online, split in 6 runqueues (3 for each socket) with 16 
>    runqueues in each of them
> 
> I can also "tweak" it in such a way that, if one for instance boots
> with "smt=no", we get to a point where we have:
> 
>  - 48 CPUs online, split in 6 runqueues, with 8 CPUs in each
> 
> Now, I think this is good, and actually better than the current
> situation where on such a system, we only have two very big runqueues
> (and let me repeat that introducing a per-LLC runqueue arrangement, on
> which I'm also working, won't help in this case, as NUMA node == LLC).
> 
> So, problem is that if one starts to fiddle with cpupools and cpu on
> and offlining, things can get pretty unbalanced. E.g., I can end up
> with 2 runqueues on a socket, one with 16 CPUs and the other with just
> a couple of them.
> 
> Now, this is all possible as of now (I mean, without this patch)
> already, although at a different level. In fact, I can very well remove
> all-but-1 CPUs of node 1 from Pool-0, and end up again with a runqueue
> with a lot of CPUs and another with just one.
> 
> It looks like we need a way to rebalance the runqueues, which should be
> doable... But despite having spent a couple of days trying to come up
> with something decent, that I could include in v2 of this series, I
> couldn't get it to work sensibly.

CPU on-/offlining may not need considering here at all imo. I think it
would be quite reasonable as a first step to have a static model where
from system topology (and perhaps a command line option) one can
predict which runqueue a particular CPU will end up in, no matter when
it gets brought online.

Jan