From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx174.postini.com [74.125.245.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E0B876B0034 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 05:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:15:54 -0600 Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7134A6E803F for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 05:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r6U9FpM6167328 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 05:15:51 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r6U9FmFw005413 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 05:15:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:45:43 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Improve numa scheduling by consolidating tasks Message-ID: <20130730091542.GA28656@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <1375170505-5967-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130730081755.GF3008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130730082001.GG3008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130730082001.GG3008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Mel Gorman , Ingo Molnar , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , Linux-MM , LKML , Preeti U Murthy , Linus Torvalds * Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 10:20:01]: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes. > > > This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work > > > is complementary to Mel's work with numa faulting. > > > > I highly dislike the use of task weights here. It seems completely > > unrelated to the problem at hand. > > I also don't particularly like the fact that it's purely process based. > The faults information we have gives much richer task relations. > Peter, Can you please suggest workloads that I could try which might showcase why you hate pure process based approach? I know numa02_SMT does regress with my patches but I think its most my implementation fault and not a approach issue. -- 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: email@kvack.org