From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756325AbbFRQNN (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:13:13 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:35363 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756204AbbFRQMg (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:12:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:12:30 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mgorman@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched,numa: document and fix numa_preferred_nid setting Message-ID: <20150618161230.GA5799@gmail.com> References: <20150616155450.62ec234b@cuia.usersys.redhat.com> <20150618155547.GA16576@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150618155547.GA16576@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > if (p->numa_group) { > > if (env.best_cpu == -1) > > @@ -1513,7 +1520,7 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p) > > nid = env.dst_nid; > > > > if (node_isset(nid, p->numa_group->active_nodes)) > > - sched_setnuma(p, env.dst_nid); > > + sched_setnuma(p, nid); > > } > > > > /* No better CPU than the current one was found. */ > > > > Overall this patch does seem to produce better results. However numa02 > gets affected -vely. Huh? numa02 is the more important benchmark of the two. 'numa01' is a conflicting workload that is a lot more sensitive to balancing details - while 'numa02' is a nicely partitioned workload that should converge as fast as possible. So if numa02 got worse then it's a bad change. Thanks, Ingo