Comment by mlyle
12 hours ago
> should have highest performance priority so that internally it stays on p cores
Everything will decide that it wants P cores; it's not punished for battery or energy impact, and wants to win over other applications for users to have a better experience with it.
And even if not made in bad faith, it doesn't know what else is running on the system.
Also these decisions tend to be unduly influenced by microbenchmarks and then don't apply to the real system.
> which threads are sharing a lot of memory
But if they're not super active, should the scheduler really change what it's doing? And doesn't the size of that L2 matter? It doesn't matter if e.g. the stuff is going to get churned out before there's a benefit from that sharing.
In the end, if you don't know pretty specific details of the environment you'll run on: what the hardware is like, what loading is like, what data set size is like, and what else will be running on the machine -- it is probably better to leave this decision to the scheduler.
If you do know all those things, and it's worth tuning this stuff in depth-- odds are you're HPC and you know what the machine is like.
To clarify, what gets scheduled is up to the OS or runtime, all you're doing is setting relative priority. If everything is all the same priority, then it's just as likely to all run on e cores.
And then, what's the point?
A system that encourage everyone to jack everything up is pointless.
A system to tell the OS that the developer anticipates that data is shared and super hot will be mostly lied to (on accident or purpose).
There's the edge cases: database servers, HPC, etc, where you believe that the system has a sole occupant that can predict loading.
But libnuma, and the underlying ACPI SRAT/SLIT/HMAT tables are a pretty good fit for these use cases.
If you lie about the nature of your application, you'll only hurt performance in this configuration. You're not telling the OS what cores to run on, you're simply giving hints as to how the program behaves. It's no different than telling the threadpool manager how many threads to create or if a thread is long lived. It's a platform agnostic hint to help performance. And remember, this is all optional, just like the threadpool example that already exists in most major languages. Are you going to argue that programs shouldn't have access to core count information on the cpu too? They'll just shoot their foots as you said.
1 reply →