public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: 丁天琛 <tianchen.dingtianc@alibaba-inc.com>
To: "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"'Juri Lelli'" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	"'Vincent Guittot'" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"'Dietmar Eggemann'" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	"'Steven Rostedt'" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"'Ben Segall'" <bsegall@google.com>,
	"'linux-kernel'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'??????'" <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] sched/numa: fix bug in update_task_scan_period
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:51:54 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <000401d6705b$eba56bf0$c2f043d0$@alibaba-inc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200811110154.GY3510@suse.de>

OK. Thanks for your advice and I'll use label instead.
In the case of migration failures, if there are still new failures after
clearing (meaning the node is still overloaded), the scanning period would
be doubled, just like not using this patch. However, if the failures do not
increase again, then the scanning period should be adjusted according to the
following rules (i.e., ps and lr ratio). I believe this is the original
design idea, right?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 7:02 PM
> To: Tianchen Ding <tianchen.dingtianc@alibaba-inc.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>; Peter Zijlstra
> <peterz@infradead.org>; Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>; Vincent
Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>; Dietmar Eggemann
> <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>; Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>;
> Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>; linux-kernel <linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org>; ?????? <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/numa: fix bug in update_task_scan_period
> 
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:30:31PM +0800, ????????? wrote:
> > When p->numa_faults_locality[2] > 0, numa_scan_period is doubled, but
> > this array will never be cleared, which causes scanning period always
> > reaching its max value. This patch clears numa_faults_locality after
> > numa_scan_period being doubled to fix this bug.
> >
> 
> An out label at the end of the function to clears numa_faults_locality
would
> also work with a comment explaining why.  That aside, what is the user-
> visible impact of the patch? If there are no useful faults or migration
failures,
> it makes sense that scanning is very slow until the situation changes. The
> corner case is that a migration failure might keep the scan rate slower
than it
> should be but the flip side is that fixing it might increase the scan rate
and still
> incur migration failures which introduces overhead with no gain.
> 
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs


  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-12  3:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-11  8:30 [RFC PATCH] sched/numa: fix bug in update_task_scan_period 丁天琛
2020-08-11 11:01 ` Mel Gorman
2020-08-12  3:51   ` 丁天琛 [this message]
2020-08-14 13:15     ` Mel Gorman

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='000401d6705b$eba56bf0$c2f043d0$@alibaba-inc.com' \
    --to=tianchen.dingtianc@alibaba-inc.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=yun.wang@linux.alibaba.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