[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130730091542.GA28656@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:45:43 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Improve numa scheduling by consolidating tasks
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
> > > This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work
> > > is complementary to Mel's work with numa faulting.
> >
> > I highly dislike the use of task weights here. It seems completely
> > unrelated to the problem at hand.
>
> I also don't particularly like the fact that it's purely process based.
> The faults information we have gives much richer task relations.
>
Peter,
Can you please suggest workloads that I could try which might showcase
why you hate pure process based approach?
I know numa02_SMT does regress with my patches but I think its most
my implementation fault and not a approach issue.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
--
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