From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753465AbaAUVFx (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:05:53 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36823 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751887AbaAUVFu (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:05:50 -0500 Message-ID: <52DEE10C.6030907@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:05:16 -0500 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mel Gorman CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] numa,sched: normalize faults_from stats and weigh by CPU use References: <1390245667-24193-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> <1390245667-24193-6-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> <20140121155652.GL4963@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20140121155652.GL4963@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/21/2014 10:56 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:21:06PM -0500, riel@redhat.com wrote: >> @@ -1434,6 +1436,11 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p) >> p->numa_scan_seq = seq; >> p->numa_scan_period_max = task_scan_max(p); >> >> + total_faults = p->numa_faults_locality[0] + >> + p->numa_faults_locality[1] + 1; > > Depending on how you reacted to the review of other patches this may or > may not have a helper now. This is a faults "buffer", zeroed quickly after we take these faults, so we should probably not tempt others by having a helper function to get these numbers... >> + runtime = p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum; >> + period = p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period; >> + > > Ok, IIRC these stats are based a decaying average based on recent > history so heavy activity followed by long periods of idle will not skew > the stats. Turns out that using a longer time statistic results in a 1% performance gain, so expect this code to change again in the next version :) >> @@ -1458,8 +1465,18 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p) >> fault_types[priv] += p->numa_faults_buffer[i]; >> p->numa_faults_buffer[i] = 0; >> >> + /* >> + * Normalize the faults_from, so all tasks in a group >> + * count according to CPU use, instead of by the raw >> + * number of faults. Tasks with little runtime have >> + * little over-all impact on throughput, and thus their >> + * faults are less important. >> + */ >> + f_weight = (16384 * runtime * >> + p->numa_faults_from_buffer[i]) / >> + (total_faults * period + 1); > > Why 16384? It looks like a scaling factor to deal with integer approximations > but I'm not 100% sure and I do not see how you arrived at that value. Indeed, it is simply a fixed point math scaling factor. I used 1024 before, but that is kind of a small number when we could be dealing with a node that has 20% of the accesses, and a task that used 10% CPU time. Having the numbers a little larger could help, and certainly should not hurt, as long as we keep the number small enough to avoid overflows. >> p->numa_faults_from[i] >>= 1; >> - p->numa_faults_from[i] += p->numa_faults_from_buffer[i]; >> + p->numa_faults_from[i] += f_weight; >> p->numa_faults_from_buffer[i] = 0; >> > > numa_faults_from needs a big comment that it's no longer about the > number of faults in it. It's the sum of faults measured by the group > weighted by the CPU Agreed. -- All rights reversed