From: riel@redhat.com
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mgorman@suse.de, jhladky@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
mingo@kernel.org, dedekind1@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] numa,sched: resolve conflict between load balancing and NUMA balancing
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:04:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1432753468-7785-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> (raw)
A previous attempt to resolve a major conflict between load balancing and
NUMA balancing, changeset 095bebf61a46 ("sched/numa: Do not move past the
balance point if unbalanced"), introduced its own problems.
Revert that changeset, and introduce a new fix, which actually seems to
resolve the issues observed in Jirka's tests.
A test where the main thread creates a large memory area, and spawns
a worker thread to iterate over the memory (placed on another node
by select_task_rq_fair), after which the main thread goes to sleep
and waits for the worker thread to loop over all the memory now sees
the worker thread migrated to where the memory is, instead of having
all the memory migrated over like before.
Jirka has run a number of performance tests on several systems:
single instance SpecJBB 2005 performance is 7-15% higher on a 4 node
system, with higher gains on systems with more cores per socket.
Multi-instance SpecJBB 2005 (one per node), linpack, and stream see
little or no changes with the revert of 095bebf61a46 and this patch.
next reply other threads:[~2015-05-27 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-27 19:04 riel [this message]
2015-05-27 19:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] revert 095bebf61a46 ("sched/numa: Do not move past the balance point if unbalanced") riel
2015-06-07 17:47 ` [tip:sched/core] Revert " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2015-05-27 19:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] numa,sched: only consider less busy nodes as numa balancing destination riel
2015-05-28 8:29 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-28 11:07 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2015-05-28 13:33 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-28 13:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-28 13:52 ` [PATCH v2 " Rik van Riel
2015-06-07 17:47 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/numa: Only consider less busy nodes as numa balancing destinations tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2015-05-29 7:44 ` [PATCH 0/2] numa,sched: resolve conflict between load balancing and NUMA balancing Artem Bityutskiy
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=1432753468-7785-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=jhladky@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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