Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] NUMA balancing: avoid to migrate task to CPU-less node

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

* Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> [2022-01-28 15:51:36]:

> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > * Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> [2022-01-28 10:38:42]:
> >
> This sounds reasonable.  How about the following solution?  If a
> CPU-less node is selected as migration target, we select a nearest node
> with CPU instead?  That is, something like the below patch.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> 
> ------------------------------8<---------------------------------
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 5146163bfabb..52d926d8cbdb 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -2401,6 +2401,23 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p)
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> +	/* Cannot migrate task to CPU-less node */
> +	if (!node_state(max_nid, N_CPU)) {
> +		int near_nid = max_nid;
> +		int distance, near_distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +		for_each_online_node(nid) {
> +			if (!node_state(nid, N_CPU))
> +				continue;
> +			distance = node_distance(max_nid, nid);
> +			if (distance < near_distance) {
> +				near_nid = nid;
> +				near_distance = distance;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		max_nid = near_nid;
> +	}
> +


This looks good. but should we move this into preferred_group_nid()?
i.e should we care for !ng case, since those would mean only private faults.

>  	if (ng) {
>  		numa_group_count_active_nodes(ng);
>  		spin_unlock_irq(group_lock);

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju