linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Consider SD_NUMA when selecting the most idle group to schedule on

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:04:45 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Consider SD_NUMA when selecting the most
 idle group to schedule on

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:35:48AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > However, if we have numa balancing enabled, that will counteract
> > the normal spreading across nodes, so in that regard it makes sense, but
> > the above code is not conditional on numa balancing.
> > 
> 
> It's not conditional on NUMA balancing because one case where it mattered
> was a fork-intensive workload driven by shell scripts. In that case, the
> workload benefits from preferring a local node without any involvement from
> NUMA balancing. I could make it conditional on it but it's not strictly
> related to automatic NUMA balancing, it's about being less eager about
> starting new children on remote nodes.

Yeah, I suppose. And you're right, there's no real winning this. It's
all tea-leaves and entrails.

In any case, I think I prefer the kill sync early variant and you were
going to ammend some comments. Can you respin and resend all these
patches (can do in a single series)?