From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] Revisit NUMA imbalance tolerance and fork balancing
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:30:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201119083027.31335-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> (raw)
Changelog since v1
o Split out patch that moves imbalance calculation
o Strongly connect fork imbalance considerations with adjust_numa_imbalance
When NUMA and CPU balancing were reconciled, there was an attempt to allow
a degree of imbalance but it caused more problems than it solved. Instead,
imbalance was only allowed with an almost idle NUMA domain. A lot of the
problems have since been addressed so it's time for a revisit. There is
also an issue with how fork is balanced across threads. It's mentioned
in this context as patch 3 and 4 should share similar behaviour in terms
of a nodes utilisation.
Patch 1 is just a cosmetic rename
Patch 2 moves an imbalance calculation. It is both a micro-optimisation
and avoids confusing what imbalance means for different group
types.
Patch 3 allows a "floating" imbalance to exist so communicating tasks can
remain on the same domain until utilisation is higher. It aims
to balance compute availability with memory bandwidth.
Patch 4 is the interesting one. Currently fork can allow a NUMA node
to be completely utilised as long as there are idle CPUs until
the load balancer gets involved. This caused serious problems
with a real workload that unfortunately I cannot share many
details about but there is a proxy reproducer.
--
2.26.2
next reply other threads:[~2020-11-19 8:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-19 8:30 Mel Gorman [this message]
2020-11-19 8:30 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/numa: Rename nr_running and break out the magic number Mel Gorman
2020-11-19 8:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched: Avoid unnecessary calculation of load imbalance at clone time Mel Gorman
2020-11-19 8:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/numa: Allow a floating imbalance between NUMA nodes Mel Gorman
2020-11-19 8:30 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched: Limit the amount of NUMA imbalance that can exist at fork time Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201119083027.31335-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.