Re: [PATCH 3/8] sched: Select a preferred node with the most numa hinting faults

[Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

> > >  
> > >  	struct rcu_head rcu;
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index f332ec0..019baae 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -1593,6 +1593,7 @@ static void __sched_fork(struct task_struct *p)
> > >  	p->numa_scan_seq = p->mm ? p->mm->numa_scan_seq : 0;
> > >  	p->numa_migrate_seq = p->mm ? p->mm->numa_scan_seq - 1 : 0;
> > >  	p->numa_scan_period = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay;
> > > +	p->numa_preferred_nid = -1;
> > 
> > Though we may not want to inherit faults, I think the tasks generally
> > share pages with their siblings, parent. So will it make sense to
> > inherit the preferred node?
> 
> One of the patches I have locally wipes the numa state on exec(). I
> think we want to do that if we're going to think about inheriting stuff.
> 
> 

Agree, if we inherit the preferred node, we would have to reset on exec.
Since we have to reset the numa_faults also on exec, the reset of
preferred node can go in task_numa_free

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>