From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] sched/numa: fix record hinting faults check
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:15:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131211101503.GY11295@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131211094156.GB26093@hacker.(null)>
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 05:41:56PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Mel,
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:14:22AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:50:00AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> Adjust numa_scan_period in task_numa_placement, depending on how much useful
> >> work the numa code can do. The local faults and remote faults should be used
> >> to check if there is record hinting faults instead of local faults and shared
> >> faults. This patch fix it.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> >This potentially has the side-effect of making it easier to reduce the
> >scan rate because it'll only take the most recent scan window into
> >account. The existing code takes recent shared accesses into account.
>
> The local/remote and share/private both accumulate the just finished
> scan window, why takes the most recent scan window into account will
> reduce the scan rate than takes recent shared accesses into account?
>
Ok, shoddy reasoning and explanation on my part. It was the second question
I really cared about -- was this tested? It wasn't and this patch is
surprisingly subtle.
The intent of the code was to check "is this processes recent activity
of interest to automatic numa balancing?"
If it's incurring local faults, then it's interesting.
If it's sharing faults then it is interesting. Shared accesses are
inherently dirty data because it is racing with other threads to be the
first to trap the hinting fault.
The current code takes those points into account and decides to slow
scanning on that basis. The change to using remote accesses is not
equivalent. The change is not necessarily better or worse because it's
workload dependant. It's just different and should be supported by more
detailed reasoning than either you or I are giving it right now. It could
also be argued that it should also be taking remote accesses into account
but again, it is a subtle patch that would require a bit of backup.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-11 10:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-11 0:49 [PATCH v5 0/8] mm: sched: numa: several fixups Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 0:49 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] sched/numa: fix set cpupid on page migration twice against thp Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 0:49 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] sched/numa: drop sysctl_numa_balancing_settle_count sysctl Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 0:49 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] sched/numa: use wrapper function task_node to get node which task is on Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 0:49 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] sched/numa: fix set cpupid on page migration twice against normal page Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 9:01 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-11 0:49 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] sched/numa: use wrapper function task_faults_idx to calculate index in group_faults Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 9:02 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-11 0:49 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] sched/numa: fix period_slot recalculation Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 9:02 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-11 0:50 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] sched/numa: fix record hinting faults check Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 9:14 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-11 9:41 ` Wanpeng Li
[not found] ` <20131211094156.GB26093@hacker.(null)>
2013-12-11 10:15 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2013-12-11 0:50 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] sched/numa: drop unnecessary variable in task_weight Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-11 9:34 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-12-11 14:50 ` Naoya Horiguchi
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=20131211101503.GY11295@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).