From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] numa: introduce numa cling feature
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:53:18 +0200
Message-ID: <20190712075318.GM3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <209d247e-c1b2-3235-2722-dd7c1f896483@linux.alibaba.com>
 <60b59306-5e36-e587-9145-e90657daec41@linux.alibaba.com>
 <9a440936-1e5d-d3bb-c795-ef6f9839a021@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190711142728.GF3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <82f42063-ce51-dd34-ba95-5b32ee733de7@linux.alibaba.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding
        :Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:
        Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:
        Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:
        List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
        bh=yBJq9CDSWPk31o8rRIJukShqhxBMe0EUUUqQoPxta+0=; b=Qj1RfR/O8WufKxSqWgw5cNtHdP
        EiGCtkdhnfwmBHRpq16DvuUT5c9pJocq2KVloiR2wNQRjNvSizqzigMTOuvCIrABB4VRLg6nt0atI
        +9JPW+rbGxfKWv0Dwzg/13BWWqMwyt912a0wnbJ/4Q+pt5oU9IqVCIdxofj9cz2RmTvKze+nm2k9S
        IzDbo38zYGjtuGmMto/J0ZEiGXsNyHPTCL3lyS5bh+k6uG3uZl8ODKmLzV2S1U/NKL3x+bBuuHwtH
        e/TOKwj9nw7Mi5MRQPOuizEX9cEzb6LV9O7izC5X3w9vMRSmw8OpUkwxZjXoaIsqnY2/nJ3Av7SRr
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <82f42063-ce51-dd34-ba95-5b32ee733de7@linux.alibaba.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <cgroups.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
To: =?utf-8?B?546L6LSH?= <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, riel@surriel.com

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:08AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
> On 2019/7/11 下午10:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> >> Thus we introduce the numa cling, which try to prevent tasks leaving
> >> the preferred node on wakeup fast path.
> > 
> > 
> >> @@ -6195,6 +6447,13 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> >>  	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> >>  		return i;
> >>
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * Failed to find an idle cpu, wake affine may want to pull but
> >> +	 * try stay on prev-cpu when the task cling to it.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	if (task_numa_cling(p, cpu_to_node(prev), cpu_to_node(target)))
> >> +		return prev;
> >> +
> >>  	return target;
> >>  }
> > 
> > Select idle sibling should never cross node boundaries and is thus the
> > entirely wrong place to fix anything.
> 
> Hmm.. in our early testing the printk show both select_task_rq_fair() and
> task_numa_find_cpu() will call select_idle_sibling with prev and target on
> different node, thus we pick this point to save few lines.

But it will never return @prev if it is not in the same cache domain as
@target. See how everything is gated by:

  && cpus_share_cache(x, target)

> But if the semantics of select_idle_sibling() is to return cpu on the same
> node of target, what about move the logical after select_idle_sibling() for
> the two callers?

No, that's insane. You don't do select_idle_sibling() to then ignore the
result. You have to change @target before calling select_idle_sibling().