[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100601155943.GA9453@laptop>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:59:43 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lee@...stfloor.org,
Schermerh@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] forked kernel task and mm structures imbalanced on NUMA
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 05:48:10PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> writes:
>
> > This isn't really a new problem, and I don't know how important it is,
> > but I recently came across it again when doing some aim7 testing with
> > huge numbers of tasks.
>
> Seems reasonable. Of course you need to at least
> save/restore the old CPU policy, and use a subset of it.
The mpolicy? My patch does that (mpol_prefer_cpu_start/end). The real
problem is that it can actually violate the parent's mempolicy. For
example MPOL_BIND and cpus_allowed set on a node outside the mempolicy.
What is needed is to execute with the existing mempolicy, but from
the point of view of the destination CPU. A bit more work on the
mpol code is required, but this is good enough for basic tests.
> Another approach would be to migrate this on touch, but that is probably
> slightly more difficult. The advantage would be that on multiple
> migrations it would follow. And it would be a bit slower for
> the initial case.
Migrate what on touch? Talking mainly about kernel memory structures,
task_struct, mm, vmas, page tables, kernel stack, etc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists