From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752637Ab2KWNbv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:31:51 -0500
Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:45021 "EHLO
	mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751207Ab2KWNbt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:31:49 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:31:38 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Alex Shi <lkml.alex@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted
Message-ID: <20121123133138.GA28058@gmail.com>
References: <20121119162909.GL8218@suse.de>
 <20121119191339.GA11701@gmail.com>
 <20121119211804.GM8218@suse.de>
 <20121119223604.GA13470@gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFzQYH4qW_Cw3aHPT0bxsiC_Q_ggy4YtfvapiMG7bR=FsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121120071704.GA14199@gmail.com>
 <20121120152933.GA17996@gmail.com>
 <20121120175647.GA23532@gmail.com>
 <CAGjg+kHKaQLcrnEftB+2mjeCjGUBiisSOpNCe+_9-4LDho9LpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121122012122.GA7938@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121122012122.GA7938@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> * Alex Shi <lkml.alex@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > Those of you who would like to test all the latest patches are
> > > welcome to pick up latest bits at tip:master:
> > >
> > >    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master
> > >
> > 
> > I am wondering if it is a problem, but it still exists on HEAD: c418de93e39891
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/90131/match=compiled+with+name+pl+and+start+it+on+my
> > 
> > like when just start 4 pl tasks, often 3 were running on node 
> > 0, and 1 was running on node 1. The old balance will average 
> > assign tasks to different node, different core.
> 
> This is "normal" in the sense that the current mainline 
> scheduler is (supposed to be) doing something similar: if the 
> node is still within capacity, then there's no reason to move 
> those threads.
> 
> OTOH, I think with NUMA balancing we indeed want to spread 
> them better, if those tasks do not share memory with each 
> other but use their own memory. If they share memory then they 
> should remain on the same node if possible.

Could you please check tip:master with -v17:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master

?

It should place your workload better than v16 did.

Note, you might be able to find other combinations of tasks that 
are not scheduled NUMA-perfectly yet, as task group placement is 
not exhaustive yet.

You might want to check which combination looks the weirdest to 
you and report it, so I can fix any remaining placement 
inefficiencies in order of importance.

Thanks,

	Ingo