From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] numa,sched: track from which nodes NUMA faults are triggered
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:26:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DEF41F.1040105@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140121122130.GG4963@suse.de>
On 01/21/2014 07:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:21:03PM -0500, riel@redhat.com wrote:
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -1492,6 +1492,14 @@ struct task_struct {
>> unsigned long *numa_faults_buffer;
>>
>> /*
>> + * Track the nodes where faults are incurred. This is not very
>> + * interesting on a per-task basis, but it help with smarter
>> + * numa memory placement for groups of processes.
>> + */
>> + unsigned long *numa_faults_from;
>> + unsigned long *numa_faults_from_buffer;
>> +
>
> As an aside I wonder if we can derive any useful metric from this
It may provide for a better way to tune the numa scan interval
than the current code, since the "local vs remote" ratio is not
going to provide us much useful info when dealing with a workload
that is spread across multiple numa nodes.
>> grp->total_faults = p->total_numa_faults;
>> @@ -1526,7 +1536,7 @@ static void task_numa_group(struct task_struct *p, int cpupid, int flags,
>>
>> double_lock(&my_grp->lock, &grp->lock);
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < 2*nr_node_ids; i++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < 4*nr_node_ids; i++) {
>> my_grp->faults[i] -= p->numa_faults[i];
>> grp->faults[i] += p->numa_faults[i];
>> }
>
> The same obscure trick is used throughout and I'm not sure how
> maintainable that will be. Would it be better to be explicit about this?
I have made a cleanup patch for this, using the defines you
suggested.
>> @@ -1634,6 +1649,7 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int node, int pages, int flags)
>> p->numa_pages_migrated += pages;
>>
>> p->numa_faults_buffer[task_faults_idx(node, priv)] += pages;
>> + p->numa_faults_from_buffer[task_faults_idx(this_node, priv)] += pages;
>> p->numa_faults_locality[!!(flags & TNF_FAULT_LOCAL)] += pages;
>
> this_node and node is similarly ambiguous in terms of name. Rename of
> data_node and cpu_node would have been clearer.
I added a patch in the next version of the series.
Don't want to make the series too large, though :)
--
All rights reversed
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] numa,sched: track from which nodes NUMA faults are triggered
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:26:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DEF41F.1040105@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140121122130.GG4963@suse.de>
On 01/21/2014 07:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:21:03PM -0500, riel@redhat.com wrote:
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -1492,6 +1492,14 @@ struct task_struct {
>> unsigned long *numa_faults_buffer;
>>
>> /*
>> + * Track the nodes where faults are incurred. This is not very
>> + * interesting on a per-task basis, but it help with smarter
>> + * numa memory placement for groups of processes.
>> + */
>> + unsigned long *numa_faults_from;
>> + unsigned long *numa_faults_from_buffer;
>> +
>
> As an aside I wonder if we can derive any useful metric from this
It may provide for a better way to tune the numa scan interval
than the current code, since the "local vs remote" ratio is not
going to provide us much useful info when dealing with a workload
that is spread across multiple numa nodes.
>> grp->total_faults = p->total_numa_faults;
>> @@ -1526,7 +1536,7 @@ static void task_numa_group(struct task_struct *p, int cpupid, int flags,
>>
>> double_lock(&my_grp->lock, &grp->lock);
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < 2*nr_node_ids; i++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < 4*nr_node_ids; i++) {
>> my_grp->faults[i] -= p->numa_faults[i];
>> grp->faults[i] += p->numa_faults[i];
>> }
>
> The same obscure trick is used throughout and I'm not sure how
> maintainable that will be. Would it be better to be explicit about this?
I have made a cleanup patch for this, using the defines you
suggested.
>> @@ -1634,6 +1649,7 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int node, int pages, int flags)
>> p->numa_pages_migrated += pages;
>>
>> p->numa_faults_buffer[task_faults_idx(node, priv)] += pages;
>> + p->numa_faults_from_buffer[task_faults_idx(this_node, priv)] += pages;
>> p->numa_faults_locality[!!(flags & TNF_FAULT_LOCAL)] += pages;
>
> this_node and node is similarly ambiguous in terms of name. Rename of
> data_node and cpu_node would have been clearer.
I added a patch in the next version of the series.
Don't want to make the series too large, though :)
--
All rights reversed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-21 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-20 19:21 [PATCH v3 0/6] pseudo-interleaving for automatic NUMA balancing riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` [PATCH 1/6] numa,sched,mm: remove p->numa_migrate_deferred riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` riel
2014-01-21 11:52 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 11:52 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-20 19:21 ` [PATCH 2/6] numa,sched: track from which nodes NUMA faults are triggered riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` riel
2014-01-21 12:21 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 12:21 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 22:26 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2014-01-21 22:26 ` Rik van Riel
2014-01-24 14:14 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-24 14:14 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-20 19:21 ` [PATCH 3/6] numa,sched: build per numa_group active node mask from faults_from statistics riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` riel
2014-01-21 14:19 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 14:19 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 15:09 ` Rik van Riel
2014-01-21 15:09 ` Rik van Riel
2014-01-21 15:41 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 15:41 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-20 19:21 ` [PATCH 4/6] numa,sched,mm: use active_nodes nodemask to limit numa migrations riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` riel
2014-01-21 15:08 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 15:08 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-20 19:21 ` [PATCH 5/6] numa,sched: normalize faults_from stats and weigh by CPU use riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` riel
2014-01-21 15:56 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 15:56 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 21:05 ` Rik van Riel
2014-01-21 21:05 ` Rik van Riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` [PATCH 6/6] numa,sched: do statistics calculation using local variables only riel
2014-01-20 19:21 ` riel
2014-01-21 16:15 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-21 16:15 ` Mel Gorman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-01-17 6:17 [PATCH 0/6] pseudo-interleaving for automatic NUMA balancing riel
2014-01-17 6:17 ` [PATCH 2/6] numa,sched: track from which nodes NUMA faults are triggered riel
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=52DEF41F.1040105@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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.