[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5090292A.3020605@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:23:22 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/31] sched, numa, mm: Add fault driven placement and
migration policy
On 10/25/2012 08:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +/*
> + * Drive the periodic memory faults..
> + */
> +void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
> +{
> + struct callback_head *work = &curr->numa_work;
> + u64 period, now;
> +
> + /*
> + * We don't care about NUMA placement if we don't have memory.
> + */
> + if (!curr->mm || (curr->flags & PF_EXITING) || work->next != work)
> + return;
We should probably skip the whole unmap-and-refault
business if we are running on a system that is not
NUMA. Ie. a system with just one node...
> + /*
> + * Using runtime rather than walltime has the dual advantage that
> + * we (mostly) drive the selection from busy threads and that the
> + * task needs to have done some actual work before we bother with
> + * NUMA placement.
> + */
> + now = curr->se.sum_exec_runtime;
> + period = (u64)curr->numa_scan_period * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
> +
--
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