From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx186.postini.com [74.125.245.186]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30B916B006E for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FFAEFCA.4030106@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:50:50 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 14/26] sched, numa: Numa balancer References: <20120316144028.036474157@chello.nl> <20120316144241.012558280@chello.nl> <4FF87F5F.30106@redhat.com> <1341836629.3462.60.camel@twins> <1341837624.3462.68.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1341837624.3462.68.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , Suresh Siddha , Mike Galbraith , "Paul E. McKenney" , Lai Jiangshan , Dan Smith , Bharata B Rao , Lee Schermerhorn , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 07/09/2012 08:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 14:23 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> It is not yet clear to me how and why your code converges. >> >> I don't think it does.. but since the scheduler interaction is fairly >> weak it doesn't matter too much from that pov. Fair enough. It is just that you asked this same question about Andrea's code, and I was asking myself that question while reading your code (and failing to figure it out). > That is,.. it slowly moves along with the cpu usage, only if there's a > lot of remote memory allocations (memory pressure) things get funny. > > It'll try and rotate all tasks around a bit trying, but there's no good > solution for a memory hole on one node and a cpu hole on another, you're > going to have to take the remote hits. Agreed, I suspect both your code and Andrea's code will end up behaving fairly similarly in that situation. > Again.. what do we want it to do? That is a good question. We can have various situations to deal with: 1) tasks fit nicely inside NUMA nodes 2) some tasks have more memory than what fits in a NUMA node 3) some tasks have more threads than what fits in a NUMA node 4) a combination of the above I guess what we want the NUMA code to do to increase the number of local memory accesses for each thread, and do so in a relatively light weight way. -- 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: email@kvack.org