From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: ????????? <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
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 14:15:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200814131554.GH3510@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000401d6705b$eba56bf0$c2f043d0$@alibaba-inc.com>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:51:54AM +0800, ????????? wrote:
> 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?
>
The original idea was to simply throttle scanning if the faults were
useless. Your patch is probably correct but I would still like to see
some evidence of the user-visible impact. What tests have you conducted
to make sure it behaves better (or is at least neutral in most cases)?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-14 13:16 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
2020-08-14 13:15 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
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=20200814131554.GH3510@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tianchen.dingtianc@alibaba-inc.com \
--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