From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14317C433DF for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC2C20B1F for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:15:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726652AbgHNNP6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:15:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33256 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726139AbgHNNP6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:15:58 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC73FAE16; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:16:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 14:15:54 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: ????????? Cc: 'Ingo Molnar' , 'Peter Zijlstra' , 'Juri Lelli' , 'Vincent Guittot' , 'Dietmar Eggemann' , 'Steven Rostedt' , 'Ben Segall' , 'linux-kernel' , '??????' Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/numa: fix bug in update_task_scan_period Message-ID: <20200814131554.GH3510@suse.de> References: <44875b14-00ea-4e61-aba7-4809808c4b2a.tianchen.dingtianc@alibaba-inc.com> <20200811110154.GY3510@suse.de> <000401d6705b$eba56bf0$c2f043d0$@alibaba-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000401d6705b$eba56bf0$c2f043d0$@alibaba-inc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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